Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANKWELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Speaker: Thursday will be a busy day.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Manpower Policy

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department intends to take in the light of the document "Towards a Comprehensive Manpower Policy" put out by the Manpower Services Commission.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): My Department will continue to collaborate closely with the Manpower Services Commission in developing longer-term manpower policies which support our economic and industrial strategies and which provide workers with the opportunities and services they need in order to lead a satisfying working life.

Mr. Forman: As it is estimated in the document itself that 1 million new jobs will need to be created between now and 1980, and as there are at present, on the most favourable estimate, only about 80,000 official training places, how can the right hon. Gentleman possibly be satisfied with the Government's efforts to date? Will he also kindly look at the experience of some of the other countries to which Labour Members are often pointing, such as Sweden and West Germany, to see how they do better, and whether there are some lessons for us?

Mr. Booth: There is no question of the Government being satisfied while we have the present appalling level of unemployment. We are studying not only the suggestions put forward in the report by the Manpower Services Commission—which, incidentally, supports the industrial strategy as a way of dealing effectively with unemployment—but also measures which have been effective in other countries. During the last recess I visited Norway, and I shall be making other visits to talk with Secretaries of State responsible for employment in other countries to see whether we have anything to learn from them, although our recent studies have shown that they may have something to learn from us as well.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend paying particular attention to the problem of the training and employment of girls and women in industry? Is he aware that


the decision of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to slash teacher training will, every year, block the way for about 40,000 girls aged 18 or 19 who might reasonably have expected on past experience to go into teacher training courses and will now have to look elsewhere?

Mr. Booth: I very much agree with the import of my hon. Friend's question, which suggests that this is a very serious training problem. The Training Services Agency has identified this as a high priority area, and through the agency we shall be working on ways of ensuring an increase of training facilities for girls.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is it not true that the Manpower Services Commission, which is seeking to persuade others to join in the work experience scheme, is prevented, as was reported in The Times yesterday, by the action of Civil Service unions from participating in the scheme itself?

Mr. Booth: No. My understanding of the situation is that the Manpower Services Commission would like to see a much faster take-up of the work experience opportunities, but it is very satisfied with the quality of the schemes that have now been introduced. If I have any evidence whatsoever of any action on the part of Civil Service unions or any civil servants that would hinder the development of the work experience scheme, which I should like to see going ahead faster, I shall act on it right away.

Mr. Bulmer: What research is being done within the right hon. Gentleman's Department on the longer-term problems of finding jobs for school leavers? Will he confirm that some such work is being done in his Department?

Mr. Booth: Work is being done both in the Department and in the Manpower Services Commission to identify long-term problems of school leavers, in terms of both the demographic factor, which is operating against school leavers at present, and the underlying structural problems.

Sona Consultants Limited, West Yorkshire

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions have taken place between representatives of his Department and representatives

of Sona Consultants Limited, new owners of the Moderna plant in West Yorkshire, who have declared its closure and the redundancy of its 332 employees.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): Officials from my Department's regional office met representatives of Sona Consultants Ltd. on 15th December and were contacted by them on 18th January. The matters discussed on these occasions included the assistance available under the temporary employment subsidy scheme, the provisions of the Employment Protection Act relating to the handling of redundancies, the implications of the Redundancy Payments Act and the services available from the Employment Services Agency and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. In addition, officials of my Department arranged for ACAS to contact Sona Consultants to explain the requirements of the Contracts of Employment Act. I also met, together with Ministers of the Department of Industry, this morning, a very useful deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), which included Mr. Bowe from Sona Consultants.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that if this closure occurs unemployment in the locality will increase to above 20 per cent.? Is he satisfied with the co-ordination of Government Departments in this matter, and does he agree that, as this area has borne the redundancy brunt of the wool textile scheme, there is a positive need for job creation in West Yorkshire to take account of the redundancies that have resulted directly from that scheme?

Mr. Golding: We cannot quantify precisely the levels of unemployment that would be reached, although I certainly agree that there would be a substantial increase in the level. Certainly my Department will do all it can to ensure, through the Manpower Services Commission, that job training is provided for those declared redundant.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Booth: The number of persons registered as unemployed in Great Britain on 13th January was 1,390,218 or 6 per cent. of all employees.
This is an increase of 74,218 on the December estimate. When account is taken of seasonal factors, the level of unemployment, including school leavers, stood at 1,291,900, or 5·6 per cent.—an increase of 14,900 on the December seasonally adjusted estimate.
The situation is therefore still a matter of serious concern. A substantial fall in unemployment must depend, among other things, on an increase in the volume of world trade and of our share in it. The level of unemployment, however, would have undoubtedly been higher without the special measures introduced by the Government to mitigate its effects, which, at a rough estimate, are at present supporting about 220,000 jobs or training places. In addition, a substantial number of jobs is being supported through projects introduced by the present Administration under the Industry Act 1972.
We also recognise that unemployment is not solely a United Kingdom problem and have kept it before our EEC partners as a matter of the highest priority so that concerted action can be taken.

Mr. Arnold: To what extent is it true to say that the Government have now been officially advised that unemployment may reach 2 million? In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, is this not a tragic situation, which both could and should have been avoided?

Mr. Booth: It certainly is a tragic situation. As to the possible rise in unemployment, so far as we can calculate the domestic factors affecting it, I should not expect to see a rise to 2 million. However, since this is partly the effect of a most serious world recession, there are clearly external factors on which the figures of unemployment at the end of this year, and even at the end of next year, will substantially depend.

Mr. Heffer: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the activities of the Government in trying to reduce unemployment, but is it not clear that the measures that have been proposed or even carried out by my right hon. Friend are totally insufficient and that what is needed is a public works programme, is

cut in hours, no further cuts in public expenditure and a serious effort by the Government to begin to bring down unemployment? I said the other day that it is intolerable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] If Tory Members had the amount of unemployment in their constituencies that I have in mine, they would never allow this House to go on—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. I gave him a good run.

Mr. Booth: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that public expenditure programmes can add considerably to the measures introduced by the Secretary of State for Industry and those which I and other Ministers in my Department have introduced in connection with the solution of unemployment, but I contend that the present Government have sustained as high a public expenditure programme as was possible in the run-in to the present recession. The extent to which it can be sustained or expanded in future will depend to no small extent on what international agreement we can reach. The ability to expand world trade is at least as much in the hands of those countries with balance of payments surpluses—if not more so—as it is in the hands of our present Government with a balance of payments deficit.

Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the announcement of those figures, if his own party were in opposition, would have this House in permanent uproar? What co-ordination was there between his Department and the Department of Education and Science before his right hon. Friend announced the rundown of teacher training colleges—such as the Rolleo College, Exmouth—in areas where these closures could double or even treble the local level of unemployment?

Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that had a Conservative Secretary of State for Employment been announcing such unemployment figures there would have been an uproar in the House; there is no doubt about that.
On the second question, about the coordination among Ministers in the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science, there has been a fair degree of co-ordination. I have met my right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for Education and Science to discuss the part that the teacher training programme has to play in employment. There are still certain areas of teacher shortage in some specialist skills, and we are examining ways in which we may be able to deal with that problem.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deplorable and continuing levels of high unemployment are a clear indictment of our capitalist system, and that we are unlikely to see much lowering of these figures through increases in the United Kingdom's trade? Is it not now essential to turn our backs on the kind of capitalist policies advocated by Conservative Members and to turn to Socialist policies? Will my right hon. Friend give us, if he has it, some indication of the level of vacancies? I suggest that at the moment there are about 13 or 14 unemployed workers chasing each vacancy.

Mr, Booth: To take the last part of that question first, we have certainly been examining, over a period, the vacancies that occur. In some cases those vacancies even now reflect certain skill shortages. That is something that we have to deal with. So far as the capitalist system is involved in the present level of unemployment—I agree that it is, to a considerable degree—representatives of this Government and of other Governments meeting to examine the problems of recession will be talking about ways of interfering in that system in the interests of better employment prospects.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is not talk of the possibility of 2 million unemployed a savage indictment not of capitalism but of this Government's policies? Will the Government now begin to come clean and make it absolutely clear that there is now no possibility of reaching the target of reducing unemployment to 700,000 by 1979? Is it not clear, too, that the road to the hell of high unemployment is paved with Socialist ministerial good intentions?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is not very bright.

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that the hon. Gentleman is not very bright. I think that he is bright enough to indict the employment situation on the actual

figures, without speculating about a level of 2 million. But it is certainly not the case that unemployment in this country is due principally to domestic policies. It is clear from any objective examination of the unemployment increase throughout Europe in recent months that the overall world recession is a major factor in our unemployment.

British Railways (Dismissed Personnel)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the fact that of the former employees of British Railways dismissed for refusing to join a trade union, six had between 13 and 19 years' service, five between 29 and 39 years' service and two more than 39 years' service, he remains satisfied with the operation of the law relating to closed shops.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gow: Is it not shameful that employees of a nationalised industry, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to the industry, should be dismissed for refusing to join a trade union? Should not the founders of the trade union movement and the Government be deeply ashamed of the new tyranny that is building up in that movement, whereby it is a precondition of employment that a person should join a trade union?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that, somehow, there should be different rules for the conduct of industrial relations as between the public and the private sectors. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions that these are matters—this was the situation prior to the Industrial Relations Act—where the parties themselves are responsible for the way in which they are conducted.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that what causes annoyance to many trade union members are the free riders who are prepared to take advantage of all the benefits that are received from trade unions without paying contributions towards their upkeep?

Mr. Walker: That is an important factor to which Opposition Members must have regard.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not the case that at least one of the employees of British Rail—namely, Mr. Webster, a constituent of mine—would have to sign what would be an untrue declaration in order to join the appropriate union? Is it not the case that he would have to sign a declaration to the effect that he approves of the aims and objectives of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association? Does the hon. Gentleman justify a rule that permits such a man to be thrown out of work after 16 years when he acts on grounds of conscience?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman talks of grounds of conscience—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will permit me, I shall answer. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act makes specific provision for a person to go before an industrial tribunal where his dismissal is related to his objection to joining a union on the grounds of having religious conviction. However, we have debated in the House the wide scope of a provision such as the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. What we have done is to restore the law to the position that obtained before the disastrous Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is never any sign of conscience on the part of such people when it comes to taking the wages that have been negotiated by other people? Does he agree that they never think of paying money to get those wages negotiated, and that that is the fundamental and real reason that they take the free ride?

Mr. Walker: There is much in what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Silvester: Is it not naïve for the Minister to suggest that there is no extra influence that he can bring to bear on nationalised industries? Does he believe that the present policy being pursued by British Rail is a proper one for them to pursue?

Mr. Walker: I say again that it would be quite wrong for the Government or anyone else to seek to lay down a way of conducting industrial relations in the public sector which differs from the way in which industrial relations are conducted in the private sector. Clearly

we must have universal rules for the game. We have withdrawn the statutory obstacles that the Industrial Relations Act introduced, with disastrous consequences in the case of Mr. Goad. If the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) were here, I am sure that he would acknowledge that it is quite wrong to believe that the taking of statutory powers such as is suggested could have other than disastrous consequences, as in the case of the Industrial Relations Act, and be other than detrimental and harmful to industrial relations. I repeat that it is our policy to leave these matters to the good judgment and sense of the parties involved.

Mr. Mellish: is it not a fact that doctors, lawyers and all the other professions are in a closed shop? [Interruption.] Oh, yes, they are. Why is it that about 3 million people in two or three unions are constantly being attacked because one or two of them expect to get all the benefits but are not prepared to make any contributions? What about the doctors?

Mr. Walker: I shall not comment on the doctors or on any other profession. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will gear their mouths to their brains they may learn something. When it introduced its Industrial Relations Act even the Conservative Party had to recognise that the closed shop was essential to the conduct of industrial relations in some sectors of industry and commerce. Therefore, in its Industrial Relations Act it made special provision for some groups to be treated separately and in a discriminatory fashion. Very often it was the professional groups that were given a shield and protection by the Industrial Relations Act, in a way that was denied to the majority of the industrial work force.

Mr. Gow: In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Underpaid Workers

Mr George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action is being taken against those employers who have been found to have underpaid workers following investigations made by officers of his Department.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take as a result of the revelations by the Wages Inspectorate about employers under-paying certain categories of low-paid workers.

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure that not less than minimum statutory wages are paid to workers in employment covered by wages council settlements.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): Employers found to have underpaid workers are required to pay any arrears calculated to be due to the workers concerned and prosecutions are considered in appropriate cases. I am considering the extent to which further blitzes will take place this year. I have examined prosecution policy carefully and while in general I believe it is right I am asking the Wages Inspectorate to arrange inspection priorities so that follow-up visits are made to employers found to be under-paying wages. I also propose to discuss problems of enforcement with chairmen of wages councils and both sides of industry.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread appreciation of the action of the Inspectorate in pursuing those employers who have consistently underpaid their work force? Does he agree that a few prosecutions might well encourage employers who do not pay enough to honour their wage agreements? Does he anticipate that he will receive support from Opposition Members who are apparently so enthusiastic about law and order?

Mr. Grant: First, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Wages Inspectorate. I pay tribute to its co-operation and hard work during the present campaign. It is only fair to point out that the policies that we are pursuing have been pursued by successive Governments. Perhaps the difference is that we are really trying to make them stick. Although we prosecute, I must tell my hon. Friend that there are difficulties, especially in obtaining witnesses. For example, a number of serious cases of underpayment involving substantial numbers of workers in the catering industry

have recently been discovered, but despite its best efforts the Inspectorate has been unable to obtain witnesses who are prepared to give evidence in court.

Mr. Canavan: In view of recent revelations by the Low Pay Unit and by newspapers such as the Daily Record, about the plight of low-paid workers, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) in urging the Minister to prosecute more employers. Although I agree that the best way for workers to ensure a fair wage is by joining a good trade union, may I ask my hon. Friend to investigate claims in yesterday's Scotsman that about 20,000 of Scotland's lowest paid workers have lost about £2 million over the past year because Scrooge-type employers are too mean to agree to the amalgamation of the Scottish and English wages councils, which would help to get rid of some of the unfair regional disparities?

Mr. Grant: I think that my initial answer indicated that we are taking further action, which should lead to additional prosecutions where they are justified. As for the distinction between England and Scotland, we are considering in certain cases the possibility of the amalgamation of wages councils, but I must point out that they are independent bodies and not subject to Government control in respect of the rates that they set.

Mr. Watkins: Does this not reveal a scrounging attitude among certain employers over their labour, and are they not imposing on the good nature of employees in the absence of strong labour organisations?

Mr. Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have condemned this situation on past occasions. I have outlined action that we intend to take, which we hope will deal with the problem.

Mr. Hordern: Is the Minister aware of the Craik case, reported in the Daily Mail last week? Will not enforcement of a minimum wage policy lead to the unemployment of many thousands of people, and will it not also cause the closure of many small firms? What is the sense in that?

Mr. Grant: The gentleman concerned in the case to which reference is made


seemed to be inviting some subsequent action. It would not be proper for me to comment on the details of the case, except to say that if somebody throws down the gauntlet he should not be surprised if it is picked up.
On the general point, the hon. Gentleman should make up his mind whether he agrees with a statutory minimum wage—a policy supported by successive Governments. If he believes that there should be a different policy he should say so, and get the support of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Penhaligon: May I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far, which has helped individual constituents of mine, who are most thankful to the Government? Is not the whole wages council set-up so archaic and complicated that the vast majority of employees do not know what the minimum wage is? Is it not time for a major reform and for the introduction of some understandable, sensible wages legislation?

Mr. Grant: There are several points involved in that supplementary question. The Employment Protection Act has had a considerable effect on the overall situation. I appreciate that there are difficulties in understanding some wages council orders. I have taken some action, which I hope will bear fruit and achieve some simplification. I think that that is all I can say now about this subject.

Unemployment Levels

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what numbers the Government's special measures have reduced unemployment.

Sir W. Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what numbers the Government's special measures have reduced unemployment.

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what numbers the Government's special measures have reduced unemployment.

Mr. Booth: With permission, I shall answer Questions 6, 7 and 8 together.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will find that the three Questions that are to be taken together

are in completely similar form and that there are a further three Questions that contain exactly the same wording. Is it not an abuse of Question Time when six Questions are tabled in exactly the same words?

Mr. Speaker: We usually take points of order after Question Time.

Mr. Mellish: Then I shall raise the matter then.

Mr. Speaker: I would add that I cannot interpret the moving of the spirit among hon. Members.

Mr. Mellish: It is a fiddle.

Mr. Booth: At present the Government's special measures are supporting over 220,000 jobs or training places, and unemployment would be higher by that number but for the measures.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister confirm in rather clearer language the fact that after two and a half years of Socialist Government unemployment has risen from 700,000 to 1,700,000? What action does he intend to take—other than to resign?

Mr. Booth: The rise in unemployment to which the hon. Gentleman refers caused us to introduce measures that have provided 220,000 jobs and training places. These measures will have to be developed, and are being re-examined so that we may meet the challenge posed by this serious problem. We shall seek to resolve these problems in more constructive ways than the methods indicated in the Opposition's criticism. We shall continue in office and seek to solve the problem.

Sir W. Elliott: Does the Minister accept that many of us agreed with his earlier comments about the shortage of skilled workers, particularly in city areas? Does he think that some of the immense sums now being used to create short-term and almost false employment would be much better used to help the small businesses that are being severely hit in urban areas?

Mr. Booth: I accept that there is a special problem in relating training to skilled shortages, but the situation sometimes cannot be foreseen. That is why we have included many special measures


of support for apprenticeships in industry. We have sustained about 45,000 apprenticeships and have maintained the level of skill training as a normal incidence of activity throughout the period of recession. We are also developing, through our Training Opportunities Scheme, a further 80,000 training places per year. That is a measure of the importance that we attach to the problem.

Mr. Grant: How does the Minister explain the sizeable number of unfilled jobs in deprived city and urban areas despite the high unemployment figures recorded in those areas? Does that not illustrate a crazy system, and are not the right hon. Gentleman's special measures ineffective to deal with the problem in an urban sense?

Mr. Booth: If I were to answer that supplementary question fully, I should require an hour-long speech to do so. There are myriad reasons for so many unfilled vacancies, and a governmental committee is now examining the special problems of urban areas. Among the reasons are the wages paid for some of the jobs that are vacant and transport problems involving travel to some of the jobs that are unfilled. The problem also embraces special skill requirements in certain jobs and the fact that jobs sometimes occur in areas that are a long way from those places where unemployment is highest. In my constituency there are vacancies for 200 skilled men, and even with the aid of our employment transfer subsidy scheme we shall have difficulty in filling those vacancies. There are a vast number of reasons for the present situation. The problem will continue to be given priority.

Mr. Noble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it had not been for the temporary employment subsidy, a large proportion of the textile and footwear industries in the North-West would have disappeared? Is he also aware that the unions in that area are concerned about the continuation of the subsidy? When will he make a statement to the effect that the subsidy will continue beyond the present termination day?

Mr. Booth: I am aware of the vast number of jobs that now depend on the payment of the temporary employment subsidy, and of the concern of the unions.

For these reasons I used part of the additional money allocated following the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, concerning the arrangements with the IMF, to continue the temporary employment subsidy scheme until April. Between now and then we are examining that scheme and others to determine whether they should be continued or whether alternative measures are needed to deal with the problem.

Mr. Madel: Does not the Minister agree that many of the jobs created do not include a real element of training, especially those provided by local authorities? What is the Manpower Services Commission doing to improve the training element in those new jobs?

Mr. Booth: The work experience scheme is specifically related to training and the Manpower Services Commission examines the training requirements of every scheme. Over a period of time the job creation scheme in respect of training has gradually been improved and many of the better schemes now contain a very good training element. The fact that the MSC approves schemes usually reflects the need for youth employment in an area. We prefer schemes containing a higher training element to be sponsored.

Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many who have benefited from the Government's special measures will note the persistent demands by the Opposition for further savage cuts in public expenditure? Will he estimate the numbers that will have to be added to dole queues before those hon. Gentlemen are satisfied?

Mr. Booth: It is beyond my capabilities to judge what would satisfy the Opposition in terms of public expenditure cuts, or where they would draw the limits. I know that they would draw the line in a different place from that indicated by my hon. Friends in the recent defence debate. I believe that the measures introduced by my Department should receive overwhelming support in all parts of the House, since they will have benefits in regions where this would not otherwise be possible and will sustain employment much more effectively than with other forms of public expenditure.

Closed Shop

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his policy toward the operation of the closed shop in industry.

Mr. Harold Walker: As we have said before on many occasions, the Government's policy is one of neutrality, and that policy is reflected in current legislation.

Mr. Ridley: Does it square with the Minister's idea of social justice that Mr. Clifford Darbyshire should be sacked by his trade union for criticising the output of his fellow workers, making it virtually impossible for him ever to get another job? Is the Labour idea of the sanction against free speech perpetual unemployment?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is scarcely qualified to lecture me on social justice. He should know that in the case to which he referred the company itself has said that the reasons given in the Press and reflected in his remarks are not the reasons for the dismissal at all.

Mr. Moate: Is the Minister aware that his attitude of neutrality on this issue is unacceptable from a Government who should, in a democracy, be committed to individual freedom? Is he aware that the attitude of neutrality towards enforcement of the closed shop is about as unacceptable to us as the attitude of neutrality towards Nazism.

Mr. Walker: The abandonment of that neutrality could only lead down the disastrous path of the Industrial Relations Act. Opposition Members seem incapable of learning from the most bitter experience. The Industrial Relations Act led to the loss of 24 million working days' production in 1972, yet hon. Members opposite want us to return to that sort of situation. It seems that they have learned nothing from having had their fingers burned then.

Trade Union Recognition

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied in pursuance of his industrial relations policy that employers accept the need to recognise trade unions.

Mr. Harold Walker: I think that most employers now accept the need to give serious consideration to the recognition of independent trade unions to which their employees belong. I hope that recent legislation, in particular the recognition provisions of the Employment Protection Act, will encourage the extension of effective collective bargaining into areas from which independent trade unions have hitherto been excluded.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in certain cities Trust Houses Forte is depriving the people working in its hotels of the opportunity of becoming members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and that one of the directors of the company is none other than the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), the Shadow Employment Minister, who is trying to woo the trade unions to his side and is urging Conservatives to join trade unions? Is it not time that the Department of Employment saw to it that decent wages were paid to these people and that they were allowed the opportunity to join trade unions? In the meantime, should not Ministers and officials of the Department black the Trust Houses Forte hotels?

Mr. Walker: Almost certainly, many of the employees will be within the scope of wages councils. My hon. Friend will have heard what the Under-Secretary of State had to say about the measures being taken on that front. The rôle played by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is for him to answer to and not for me. If what my hon. Friend has said is correct—and I have no doubt that it is—

Mr. Skinner: And St. John-Stevas, as well.

Mr. Walker: —I hope that they will bring their influence to bear and make their actions in the company consistent with what they have said in this House about the need for strong trade unions.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Minister appreciate that recognition of unions by employers does not require an employer to make an agreement that existing employees shall be sacked if they will not join a union? Does he agree that British Rail employees sacked in these circumstances would not have


been sacked if they had been working for other nationalised industries, because most of those industries would not make that agreement?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must be incapable of understanding plain language. I have explained this matter several times in the last half hour. I have made it clear that what has happened in British Rail is that the closed shop that existed before the Industrial Relations Act has been reactivated.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the disputes arising in large factories and other concerns over the question of safety regulations, in pursuing his industrial relations policy when is my hon. Friend going to introduce the health and safety regulations? Does he not feel that they will make a contribution to better industrial relations?

Mr. Walker: Presumably my right hon. Friend is referring to the regulations providing for the appointment of work-people's safety representatives and safety committees. I am glad to say that the Government have approved the commission's proposals and that the regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, to come into operation on 1st October 1978.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is as wrong in the charges he made earlier as he is so often on other occasions? If we can turn to more serious matters, will the Minister direct his attention to the method by which the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service carries out its survey of the wishes and desires of employees when recognition is at issue, because there is growing criticism about the fairness and reasonableness of the methods employed?

Mr. Walker: I totally refute what the hon. Gentleman said about the fairness with which the ACAS is conducting inquiries in Section 11 cases. None of those criticisms has come to me directly, and I know of no reason why they should be considered. The way in which the ACAS is carrying out its duties is reflected in the enormous improvement in industrial relations over the past year.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Q 1. Mr. Ovenden: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 1st February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with the Leader of the House about the Scotland and Wales Bill? If he does, will he arrange for a statement to be made afterwards clarifying the Government's position on the question of representation of Wales and Scotland in this House?

The Prime Minister: The question of the representation of Scotland and Wales in this House is not related to the Scotland and Wales Bill. It can be settled only by this House, and, in accordance with precedent, would be settled only following a Speaker's Conference. I have no doubt that some hon. Members might want to use arguments deriving from the passage of the Scotland and Wales Bill to support such a change, but that would be an entirely separate matter.

Mrs. Thatcher: As one of the Prime Minister's engagements on Tuesdays is to answer Questions in this House, will he take the opportunity to resolve an apparent inconsistency between his statement on the Bullock Report and the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade? Will he say whether, in his view, he has an obligation under the social contract, regardless of consultation, to legislate for the central proposal of the Bullock Report, which is to put trade union nominees on to company boards?

The Prime Minister: The obligation that the Government entered into with the people at the last General Election was to introduce a measure of industrial democracy. That we shall do, and, as we have already said, we shall enter into those discussions, as might be expected, on the basis of the majority report of Bullock. [Interruption.] There would be a great deal of complaint if one normally entered discussions on the basis of a minority report. There will now be a


period of consultation, and the Government's legislative proposals will in due course be laid before the House. There is no conflict between anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has said and what I have said on this matter.

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman's proposals are not for industrial democracy but for industrial apartheid. Has he decided to exclude the right of non-trade union members either to choose who goes on the board or to be chosen to go on the board themselves?

The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Lady refers to what she calls "the right hon. Gentleman's proposals", it shows clearly that she has neither read nor understood what has been said so far. If she disagrees, perhaps she will tell me why. The only proposals so far have come from the Bullock Committee in the form of a majority report and a minority report. The Government have said that they will enter into consultations on the basis of the majority report. When we have had those consultations, we shall bring forward our legislative proposals. I hope that the right hon. Lady can understand that it is a perfectly simple proposition. With regard to her particular phrases, I would welcome it if on some occasions she would condemn apartheid in the country where it really occurs.

Mrs. Thatcher: But the Secretary of State for Trade has said that he is consulting on the basis of the minority report as well. Is that so, or is it not?

The Prime Minister: The Government's consultations are on the basis of the majority report. I have received a letter from the CBI in which it indicates that it will want to put forward certain proposals to me. It may well want to discuss the minority report. We shall, of course, be ready to discuss the minority report and, indeed, any other ideas that may come forward. That is what consultation is about.

Mrs. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend find time to call on the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and tell him that the Government have decided to bring in the early implementation of the safety representative provisions after all? Does my right hon. Friend agree

that any serious extension of industrial democracy also depends on the implementation of these regulations?

The Prime Minister: It is not often that I can give an answer that satisfies my hon. Friend, but in case she was not present earlier I can tell her that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment announced that the Government will bring forward the health and safety regulations forthwith to be implemented on 1st October 1978. Of course, if voluntary arrangements are made earlier that will be so much the better. There is nothing to prevent that from happening, once the regulations are on the statute book. With regard to the connection with industrial democracy, I also agree with my hon. Friend that this is part of industrial democracy and should be seen as such.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Industry.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 20th January.

Mr. Dykes: With phase 3 of the Pay Code now being discussed, does the Prime Minister agree that higher wages can be financed only out of higher production? With the latest available production index at 102·6, compared with 103·3 in February 1974, during the so-called three-day working week recession—about which Labour Members complained so bitterly—will the right hon. Gentleman say how high he will put that on the list of the Secretary of State's biographical notes when, in due course, the Prime Minister fires him later this summer?

The Prime Minister: I shall take the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As he probably knows, manufacturing industry production is already starting to move up slowly. I entirely agree that until we have got a higher level of production we cannot do many of the things that we wish to do, including increasing public expenditure on necessary things like housing and health.
What is important is that we should not resume a higher level of production if it will mean higher inflation. That is the problem with which the Chancellor and others are wrestling at the moment. That is why the Government's efforts are bent on export-led growth. I am glad to be able to tell the House that our exports in 1976 were 12 per cent. higher in volume in the last quarter than the average in 1975.

Mr. Rooker: Does my right hon. Friend believe that industrial production will increase when accidents decrease? As Question No. 21, in my name, was not reached, will he confirm that it was a slip of the tongue when he said, earlier, that the reactivation of the health and safety provisions will take place in 1978? Did my right hon. Friend not mean 1977?

The Prime Minister: No, it was not a slip of the tongue. I said 1978 and I meant 1978.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend must be joking.

The Prime Minister: I am not joking at all. I promise my hon. Friend that I do not joke about these matters. The matter has been carefully discussed, and the regulations will be laid immediately. They will come into legal force on 1st October 1978, but it will be for employers and trade unions, if they wish—and a number will wish to do so—to introduce them earlier. My understanding is that they will want to get on with it.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the abolition of the regional employment premium, without notice and consultation, is causing repercussions within Scottish industry and is affecting jobs? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the premium has been retained in Northern Ireland and why these changes are made without either planning agreements or any other sort of consultation?

The Prime Minister: These matters have been debated on previous occasions and I have nothing to add to what has been said before. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, nor is there much evidence, that this is having a profound effect on industry. In many cases we

must be able to make changes from time to time in order to ensure that the level and direction of Government support is applied where it gives greatest benefit. The regional employment premium was a very successful medium about 10 years ago, but had begun to outlive its usefulness because the amount of the premium was so small in relation to wages.
By contrast, some of the instruments that our predecessors provided and some that we are providing are enabling us to direct assistance where it is really needed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is by far the better way of doing it.

Mr. Kinnock: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the great virtue of the regional employment premium was that it discriminated in favour of those parts of the country with chronic, deep and long-term weaknesses in industrial terms? Both the CBI and the TUC have made representations to the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends asking for a reversal of this policy so that we can encourage a shake-out of industry in order to provide new jobs for people who have been waiting for them for decades.

The Prime Minister: Yes, but the nature and type of unemployment has changed since REP was introduced about 12 years ago. Some of our large cities, including the inner cities—as I have seen for myself—have problems that are equal to those in the development areas. It is for this reason that we must keep up to date in the way in which we use Government assistance.

Mr. Churchill: How does the Prime Minister explain the scandalous fact that since March 1975 industrial production in two out of every three months under a Socialist Government has been lower than during the three-day working week at the time of the miners' strike? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman changed some of his Socialist priorities?

The Prime Minister: I can only say that after careful study I can see nothing better than the policy that we are following in order to try to overcome inflation and increase exports. In their secret hearts Members of the Opposition know that.

TUC

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.

Mr. Adley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the current dispute at the BBC, where the Executive Committee of the NUJ has tried to impose a strike on the unwilling majority of NUJ members who are affiliated to the TUC? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that the opportunity of a ballot be offered to workers, be it on the question of trade union membership or the closed shop? Will he take this matter up with the TUC and see if it will agree to include in future, as a recommendation to the member unions, the right to ballot on all these questions?

The Prime Minister: I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not want to give a reply this afternoon. With regard to the dispute between the BBC and the journalists, I believe that I am right in saying that this has now gone to ACAS. If so, ACAS should be allowed to arbitrate or conciliate on the matter, as seems to be necessary.

Mr. Ridley: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC will he tell it that he prefers the views of his own Secretary of State, who, after all, is accountable to this House, and who seems to be veering towards the minority report, rather than the views of Mr. Len Murray, who does not even seem to speak for the TUC now?

The Prime Minister: It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman allowed us to begin the process of consultation. If we were to announce our decisions forthwith there would be an awful howl from the Opposition. What we are doing is to

announce the basis on which we shall consult. In due course, if the House will give us the time and the opportunity, we shall come forward with our proposals.

Mr. Marten: May I make a helpful suggestion to the Prime Minister? When he next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the proposition that wage settlements in the major public sector industries should all be arrived at on one day—in other words, synchronised—to avoid the damage done by the leapfrogging of wage settlements?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that he heard what the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said. For myself, I can see great practical difficulties, however desirable this might be in theory. If we could work towards it, I should want to encourage it, but I do not think that it is likely to happen in next year's wage round.

Mr. Spearing: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he discuss his recent welcome statements about the redevelopment of our inner cities? Is he aware that it would be possible to redevelop a great deal of East End dockland without disadvantage to the development areas and without increasing Government expenditure, simply by moving some of the development capital from the South-East into the East London area and away from the new towns? Is he aware, further, that if he answers this question and it is published in the local Stratford Express, it will be printed in Milton Keynes?

The Prime Minister: That is a great temptation to answer it. But we had a very useful discussion on this matter last weekend at the local government conference of the Labour Party. There is growing concern about the problem of our inner cities. I repeat what I have said already. As soon as resources become available, this is one of the priority problems that we must tackle. But we have to make resources available. The Government find themselves under considerable pressure from a great many sides to reduce public expenditure. That is what we have done. But we must deal with this problem as soon as we can.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is about Questions, and I raise it in an endeavour to assist the Chair. As so often happens, Questions to the Prime Minister today have been concerned with what he does on a certain day or with a meeting with the TUC but, in fact, have covered a whole series of subjects hardly related to the original Questions. Would you consider referring this difficulty to the Sessional Procedure Committee so that we might make more sense of the types of Question which are put to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: The matter has already been referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, and I am sure that what the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said will have been noted.

IMPORT DUTIES (STATUTORY INSTRUMENT)

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed from today's Order Paper that the second item of business concerns an Import Duties Order which increases the import duties on certain foods. A number of hon. Members will want to vote against it, obviously, because we do not want the cost of food to be increased. I also notice that, at the commencement of Public Business, the House is to deal with another Statutory Instrument under Standing Order No. 73A, whereas the Import Duties Order is not to be taken until after debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill which, as rumour has it, may be in the early or not so early hours of the morning.
Could you advise me whether it would be possible for the Leader of the House to withdraw the Import Duties Order which is due for consideration at that time and to put it down again tomorrow in order to take it at the commencement of Public Business? It seems to be an extreme example of masochism to take it at the time of night proposed at present.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. However ingenious it may be, the procedure suggested by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten)

would be inconvenient since I understand that the Prayer in respect of that Order would be out of time tomorrow.
May I also draw to your attention the fact that, when discussions took place on a similar matter on 22nd March 1973, as reported in column 689 of Hansard, the then Leader of the House said that when instruments or documents went upstairs under Standing Order No. 73A they would be voted on forthwith at the commencement of Public Business at half-past three? As far as I am aware, that practice has never been followed, to the detriment of Back Benchers of this House. I ask that, if it is possible, this matter be looked at by you with a possible reference to the Select Committee on Procedure.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the risk of appearing to enter any dispute between the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—I should not wish to do that—I do not believe that the previous statement by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), when he was Leader of the House, was really a precedent in the matter. What we have done is to put down this motion to try to meet the wishes of my hon. Friends. I agree that we have to try to deal with these matters in a better way in the future. But we have sought to give the House the opportunity to vote for which we were asked.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quite apart from the precedents, is not it very inconvenient for everyone if a Division on an important matter of taxation has to take place at three or four o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Speaker: The House has heard the Lord President. All that I can say is that the placing of business on the Order Paper is not a matter for me. I am quite sure that everyone will be here at the appropriate time.

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL (SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)raised a


point of order relating to Speaker's Conferences with special reference to the Scotland and Wales Bill. He asked for my comments on certain amendments, and I assume that he had Amendment No. 575 and New Clause 36 in mind.
The hon. Gentleman was, of course, quite right when he said that I had no locus in relation to what went on in Committee. Nevertheless, I have the same opportunity as the rest of the House in seeing selection lists circulated under the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I note that those two amendments have in fact been selected by the Chairman. I imagine that it is possible that they will come before the Committee of the whole House today.
However, I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to comment either upon Clause 3 of the Bill or upon any amendment to the clause. It would be quite improper for me to do so. It is for the House to decide how to resolve this matter without any advice from me. I am the servant of the House and if any task were to be placed upon me by statute, as the hon. Gentleman said yesterday, it would be my duty to carry it out to the best of my ability. I am afraid that I can say no more.

Mr. George Cunningham: Since I raised the matter yesterday, perhaps I might remind vou, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) intervened after I had spoken to make the point that the amendments would not in fact oblige you to set up

a Speaker's Conference. Therefore, I suggest that there is still a point here in that, whether or not these amendments were passed, the situation would remain as it is at the moment and you might get a request from the Prime Minister in the normal way to set up a Speaker's Conference for the purpose of considering the representation of Scotland and Wales in this House.
If you were to receive such a request, could we be sure that you would not accede to it before you had the opportunity to hear the views of the House on whether that was the appropriate mechanism to consider the matter, bearing in mind especially that we have no control over whether you accede to such a request. After all, a Speaker's Conference has nothing to do with us. It is not a Committee of the House. It is your own private Committee. I never know where the money comes from for it.
I hope that, somehow or other, you will find yourself able to respond to my question.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot commit myself on a hypothetical situation which might arise, but I have, of course, taken note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Ordered,
That the Overseas Service (Pensions Supplement) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to end the statutory monopoly of the Post Office in the provision of telephone equipment; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is a very small measure and its aim is very simple. It is simply designed to amend the Post Office Act so that the monopoly of the Post Office extends only as far as the subscriber's premises and not to the provision of equipment which lies in his home.
This is a matter of considerable importance because lately we have been talking a lot about industrial strategy. I believe that the industrial strategy which we should follow is to do things exactly like the proposal in this Bill. It is this sort of monopolistic provision in industry which lies in the way of technological progress, better customer satisfaction, more exports and more jobs. There was a time when the Trades Union Congress used to rail against monopolies, and in so far as there were monopolies I thought that this was one of the best things the TUC ever said. Here is an example of a monopoly which is not necessary, which is harmful and which could well be done without.
I would like to give a number of technical reasons for this statement. The development of the telephone and exchange equipment in the subscriber's home has gone far beyond what Alexander Graham Bell could ever have envisaged. I begin with the most absurd of all the possibilities. It may be that there are some subscribers who want telephones of different colours from those provided by the Post Office, and they cannot get them. The Post Office monopoly prevents it. A more important example is the push-button telephone device. We have these in this House, and I can well understand why they have not been allowed outside. If they were unleashed upon the unsuspecting public, dissatisfaction with the Post Office would increase apace. But there is no reason why a really effective push-button telephone should not be offered to subscribers.
If there were no monopoly one could have repertory diallers which remember telephone numbers and dial a number when it is wanted. These are not available. Then there are loud-speaking telephones which broadcast a message to all those in a room. These are still not available. There are all sorts of types of answer-phones which can be provided only under restricted conditions by the private sector and which are not allowed to flourish because of the operation of the monopoly.
Telephone engineers believe that eventually it will be possible for the telephone connected to one's house to operate as a mini-computer and to give access to one's bank, department store or supermarket direct, and to allow one's meters to be read direct by telephone. There are all sorts of imaginative, labour-saving and exciting devices all within the realms of possibility. But there is one small difficulty—the Post Office is sitting on them, and its monopoly is preventing the proper development of these technical devices.
This does not apply only to telephone equipment. It applies also to subscribers' exchanges. The potential which could be offered in the provision of subscribers' exchanges is very great, and there is no technical reason why it should not be done. All the Post Office has to do is to make sure that the equipment is compatible with its own network system.
I propose in this Bill that there should be a committee of independent persons appointed to check that any equipment developed for the home is compatible with the Post Office network. At the moment this function is carried out by the Post Office in a most partial and self-interested way, not with a view to promoting competition in equipment but with a view to reserving unto itself the types of equipment it orders, thereby denying any technical improvement and the freedom of choice to the consumer. Freedom of choice is yet another reason why this small amendment should be made to the Post Office Act.
The value of all telephones installed in this country is about £500 million. That is £500 million which could have been provided by the private sector. This is one way in which the public sector could be relieved of putting up capital. Not only that, but it is estimated by the manufacturers


that this would enable them to export to world markets much more effectively and this would lead to more jobs, more exports, more profits and more prosperity.
Here in a microcosm is a small example of what the Government, by sitting there and letting this Bill through without opening their mouths, could achieve in increasing the prosperity of industry. If they mean business when they talk about industrial strategy they should support this sort of thing, instead of airy-fairy schemes and "little Neddies" and so on. The Government should allow the private sector to throw off its shackles and restrictions and allow the nationalized industries to revert to their true functions of providing a public service network. The Government should support this Bill, instead of stifling innovation, enterprise and initiative wherever they are found. For these reasons I seek leave to bring in the Bill.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I wish to oppose the introduction of this Bill because I refute the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that it will bring about the sort of changes in the Post Office and the country which he has outlined.
My interest in Post Office affairs is well known to the House. But in all the debates in which I have taken part on Post Office affairs I have not heard the hon. Member make any reference to the sort of proposal he is putting forward now. I am pleased that he has intervened this afternoon, however, because we have heard from him a statement which I, personally, was very glad to hear. The hon. Member is well known for his views about freeing public enterprises and putting them into private hands. Yet it seems now that he believes that the Post Office should have a monopoly in the provision of the communications network. He also wrote this view in this week's House magazine where he said that it would be silly to have competing telephone networks and exchanges. This is an advance in his thinking. I was surprised that he was prepared to accept that much. I would have thought that he wanted to denationalise the whole lot and

to put it into the hands of private enterprise.
There are a number of specific reasons why I ask the House to reject his proposal this afternoon. The first is that the Government, in the autumn of 1975, established the Carter Committee to look into the whole future of the Post Office, and that of course includes the Post Office monopoly enshrined in the Act which the hon. Member seeks to amend. It has been carrying out a long and detailed investigation and it will almost certainly be commenting on the monopoly factor. It would seem wrong for this House to pre-empt that Committee's findings by accepting the introduction of the Bill.
In addition to that Committee there is the Annan Committee which is looking at the future of broadcasting. It will no doubt comment on the future of cablevision and on the whole question of common carrier cables. That is a matter that the House should wait to hear before making decisions of the sort we are now asked to take.
The second reason is that it would be impossible to permit subscribers to attach any sort of equipment to the system without the most intensive technical evaluation. That of course would have to be done in the most careful and detailed way by the Post Office or someone else. The telecommunications network is not simply a distribution system like gas or electricity. If my gas cooker goes wrong it does not affect my neighbour up the street. By contrast, in telecommunications an appliance or equipment that is attached to the system could affect the whole integrity of the telecommunications network and could affect other customers' services if it is wrongly designed, installed or maintained.
That means that the Post Office would have to engage in the most extensive testing of every piece of equipment which it might be sought to attach to the system. If the Post Office or some other body was given the job of vetting every piece of equipment it would be a cumbersome, expensive and ineffective process, and the consumer would have to bear the cost.
My third reason for opposing the Bill goes to the core of the argument. The proposal would lead to a creaming off of some of the most profitable areas of


the Post Office service. That is what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is really after. He wants to cream off the most profitable parts and give them to private enterprise just as his party has done on other occasions. If that was done and if the unremunerative services were left to the Post Office—for example, the call boxes which are heavily expensive to maintain—that would be to the detriment of the whole system.
There is already considerable competition for public exchange systems and for large private automatic branch exchanges. A range of small private automatic branch exchanges, special telephones, data transmission, and tele-printer equipment are already among the services provided by the Post Office. The vast majority of this equipment is manufactured by British firms. I agree that the range of equipment should be widened and that the Post Office needs to be much less cautious and more aggressive in its marketing and in the number of pieces of equipment that it provides.
There should also be joint efforts with manufacturing industry to provide exportable equipment for sale abroad, but I

think that that could be done by putting pressure on the Post Office. It would do untold damage, technically and financially, to introduce this Bill this afternoon, and therefore I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in opposing it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Michael Stewart: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Bill were to become law it might result in an advantage to certain private firms, possibly to the detriment of the general public. Would it therefore be proper for any hon. Member who is connected with a firm that might so benefit to vote for the Bill unless he has previously declared his interest?

Mr. Speaker: On a matter of public policy every hon. Member has the right to vote as he thinks best.

The House having divided: Ayes 175, Noes 236.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
James, David


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Baker, Kenneth
Drayson, Burnaby
Jessel, Toby


Banks, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Beith, A. J.
Elliott, Sir William
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bell, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Benyon, W.
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Biffen, John
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel


Body, Richard
Forman, Nigel
Le Merchant, Spencer


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bottomley, Peter
Freud, Clement
Loveridge, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Luce, Richard


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brittan, Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Neil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacGregor, John


Buck, Antony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John
Maude, Angus


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray


Channon, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Mayhew, Patrick


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Hicks, Robert
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Mills, Peter


Cope, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Miscampbell, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Molyneaux, James




Monro, Hector
Rhodes James, R.
Tebbit, Norman


Montgomery, Fergus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, George


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Trotter, Neville


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Ross, Stephen (lsle of Wight)
Wakeham, John


Mudd, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Neave, Airey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


Neubert, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Walters, Dennis


Newton, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Weatherill, Bernard.


Onslow, Cranley
Shepherd, Colin
Wells, John


Page, John (Harrow West)
Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Pardoe, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Pattie, Geoffrey
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Penhaligon, David
Spence, John
Younger, Hon George


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanley, John



Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Steel, Rt Hon David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Raison, Timothy
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Ian Gow.


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tapsell, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David


Archer, Peter
Edge, Geoff
Lamond, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Ashley, Jack
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman
Ennals, David
Litterick, Tom


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Luard, Evan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh


Bates, Alf
Faulds, Andrew
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor


Boardman, H.
Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Madden, Max


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gilbert, Dr John
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Buchanan, Richard
Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carter, Ray
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cartwright John
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Clemitson, Ivor
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Horam, John
Newens, Stanley


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Noble, Mike


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Park, George


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Reid, George


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Duffy A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, George (Chorley)







Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Strang, Gavin
Welsh, Andrew


Rooker, J. W.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Whitlock, William


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wigley, Dafydd


Selby, Harry
Tierney, Sydney
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Sir Thomas


Silverman, Julius
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Rt Hon Erie G.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Snape, Peter
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woodall, Alec


Spearing, Nigel
Ward, Michael
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stallard, A. W.
Watkinson, John



Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Weetch, Ken
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart, David
Weitzman, David
Mr. John Ovenden and


Stott, Roger
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Ian Wigglesworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 26th January].

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

4.8 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Sir Myer. While the first group of amendments is being discussed, would you be willing to give further consideration to the selection of amendments in the group headed by No. 575 and consider whether the provisional selection might be the subject of a little further thought?
The new clause which has been tabled by the Opposition Front Bench could have effect only if the overall size of the House were reduced—that is, if the Speaker's Conference recommended a reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh Members in the House. Would that not be going well beyond the scope of the Bill?
My right hon., hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment seeking to avoid that difficulty by ensuring that the seats taken from Scotland and Wales could, by a general redistribution, be allocated to other under-represented areas such as Northern Ireland. If we vote on the selected new clause, but on none of the amendments to it, hon. Members who do not wish the membership of this House to be reduced will be in difficulties.
If it is argued that the amendment to provide for a redistribution is out of order, it is difficult, to see how the new clause could be in order, and perhaps that is what the Prime Minister meant when he said at Question Time today that it would be outside the scope of the Bill. Surely we should be able to meet this point by a general redistribution and not by simply reducing the size of the membership of the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I should like to support the plea made to you, or through you to the Chairman of the Committee, by the hon. Member

for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) since, as the selection stands, it would be difficult to take into account the representation of this House in other parts of the United Kingdom or the manner in which that representation might be in evitably affected by an alteration in the representation of Scotland and Wales. Since Amendment (a) is only an amendment to a selected new clause, perhaps the hope might be expressed that it would be possible for that amendment to be taken into account in the discussion on the new clause, New Clause 36.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman for their points of order. I shall certainly give the matter further consideration and let them know my decision before we reach the discussion on the amendments.

Clause 3

TIME OF ELECTION AND TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF ASSEMBLY

Miss Harvie Anderson: I beg to move Amendment No. 482, in page 2, line 12, after 'day' insert:
'after the next general election'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 93, in page 2, line 12, leave out from 'on' to 'any' in line 14 and insert '29th March 1978 and'.
No. 94, in page 2, line 13, after 'State' insert:
'following the next General Election'.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The amendment ensures that the first ordinary election of Members to the Scottish or Welsh Assembly shall not be held until after the next General Election. While the Bill sets no time scale, leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of State, it is important that this matter should be carefully considered. As will be seen, it opens up the question of what would be a referendum for the whole United Kingdom.
It would not be in order for me to discuss the terms of the referendum, which are surrounded by doubt, and certainly not to do so at any length. But I must


refer to the matter because the whole question of who might vote if there is such a referendum is likely to prove one of the most controversial questions in relation to the Bill. The reason for such controversy must be that there are 5 million Scots and probably as many, if not more, who are resident and working in England. We have evidence of that in this Chamber, where I see some of my fellow countrymen who, I suppose, if the referendum were narrowly drawn, would be considered to be English and would have no opportunity of expressing their points of view.
This is a much wider question than perhaps the rather simple terms of the amendments suggest. It opens up a question to which I hope the Government will apply themselves when they reply. I do not exaggerate when I say that all hon. Members are particularly anxious to know the Government's thinking on a referendum, and their intention in relation to those Scots in England. It would be perfectly simple to avoid difficulties in this direction if our amendments were accepted.
4.15 p.m.
Under the amendment there would be the opportunity at a General Election for the whole United Kingdom to express its view on this matter. It should be borne in mind that this is a constitutional Bill. It is too often forgotten, and it cannot be emphasised too often, that a constitutional Bill is a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is not too much of an exaggeration to compare it for that purpose with the Reform Act 1832 or with the Parliament Act 1911. If it does stand up to comparison—as I believe it does—with these great constitutional measures, it is a matter upon which the United Kingdom should have its say.
There are two maybe lesser reasons why there should be this provision. There can be little doubt that there are already too many elections. The election proposals in the Bill are likely to be followed by legislation for direct elections to the European Parliament.

Mr. Powell: No.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may well be correct, but the proposals are likely to be put forward by the

Government. Perhaps I should have made clear that that is as far as the matter has gone. Nevertheless, there are district council and county council elections, and there will be Assembly General Elections. My point is that there are already too many elections. There should at least be sufficient time to prepare for the important election which might arise if this Bill ever reaches the statute book.
The second matter to which I must refer is a matter to which we shall return more appropriately later. When the number of Members which an Assembly may have or the number of Members who may be sent to Westminster is discussed, there will undoubtedly be a challenge to the numbers proposed in the Bill and to the existing numbers at Westminster. In either case it is likely that it will be necessary for the Boundary Commission to redefine boundaries. This will take a considerable time. We know from relatively recent experience that boundary changes raise many problems and that there are many charges and counter charges of gerrymandering. It would be unrealistic to suppose that boundary changes in this connection would be any more acceptable than they have ever been. That is an additional reason why there should be some delay and an opportunity for careful consideration.
It must be becoming increasingly clear to the Government that this Bill is unpopular. Its unpopularity is in no way confined to one point of view or to one section of the community. If we seek to delay the implementation of the Bill until after the next General Election, we do so for the reasons I have expressed and because I firmly believe that public opinion does not want this measure. There is growing evidence of this. I have just been to a meeting in Glasgow which I am sure you, Sir Myer, would have been glad to attend had you not been precluded from doing so by your present distinguished position. At the meeting, on one of the worst nights of weather experienced in five years, opinion was unanimously against the Bill.
That was ample evidence that the "Scotland is British" campaign has not only got off the ground but is supported by the widest range of opinion in Scotland, which is ever growing. This was also evidenced yesterday—I think that


even the Government would agree that this was a happy coincidence—by an opinion poll published on the front page of the Glasgow Herald, which took precisely the same line, that there is growing opinion against the Bill.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The opinion poll not only showed that a majority of Conservatives are now against devolution, as it was phrased in the poll, but that more Labour voters are against devolution than are in favour. Should not the Government recognise that their support on their own side is crumbling away?

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Iain MacCormick: Does the right hon. Lady know that today's edition of the same newspaper shows that the Conservative Party has lost ground to the Scottish National Party, which now leads all the parties in Scotland, according to the opinion polls?

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am happy to rest on Monday's opinion poll. I am not worried by the minor fluctuations of fortune that the SNP may or may not enjoy. Its success in opinion polls to date has been temporary, and I believe that its mini-success today will also be temporary, as the next opinion poll will show and as was already clear from the meeting I attended last night.
The amendment seeks to provide a pause, a break, for people to consider what will happen. More important, it provides an opportunity for the whole country to have the type of referendum which I believe in a democracy should be the effective way of providing an answer. I have never been able to support a referendum as such, believing that it should be written into our democratic system that the "Yea" or "Nay" should be provided at a General Election.
It is to uphold that point of view that I support this way in which we could provide for our English friends, relations and colleagues to have an equal right of determination on a most important constitutional measure. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber will support the amendment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: One wonders whether this discussion does not underline once again how extremely unsatisfactory it is that we do not yet know the terms of the referendum clause. A direct question. When is my right hon. Friend the Lord President likely to be able to tell us the contents of the new clause?
Without making too much of a point of it—I was going to say "a party point" but it is an "opposition to the Bill point"—I must say that it is not very meaningful to have this kind of discussion without knowing the terms of the referendum clause, which will determine so much of what we discuss.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. But we need to know not only the terms of the referendum clause but the Government's intention in relation to the timing of the referendum, and in particular how it is to be linked with choosing the appointed day, which is mentioned in Clause 3. We need to know what the Government have in mind as to the sequence—the passing of the Bill, the holding of the referendum, and the election of the Assembly, in the unlikely event of the referendum's succeeding, as the Government hope it will.

Mr. Dalyell: On the timing of the referendum, let us have some sympathy with Ministers, because they do not know when the Bill will get through the House, if ever.
Therefore, I do not wish to press them too hard on the question of the timing.
The next point to which we must come is that raised by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), the issue of those who believe themselves to be Scots or Welsh but resident in and working in England.
Many of us have now had far more letters, and far more determined letters, than we had expected from people who think that if there is to be a referendum they have some right to take part.
I warn Ministers that a pent-up resentment will be felt by first-generation Scots or people who consider themselves Scots, working in Britain, if they are denied what they consider to be their rights. They will feel that they are discriminated against.
Some of the letters say "We don't want too much patrial research." It is very difficult to establish who are Scots in England and who are not. This shows once again the difficulty of the whole proposition.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: In response to the hon. Gentleman's point, with which I have great sympathy, may I issue the invitation that when we know what the Government propose by way of a referendum he and I should join in putting down an amendment to entitle those of whom he has spoken to be enfranchised for this purpose?

Mr. Dalyell: I have signed hardly an amendment, because, being root and branch against the Bill, I thought it would be hypocritical to pretend that I wanted to improve it.
I echo what the right hon. Lady said and what has been said by the West Lothian Constituency Labour Party full-time agent and full-time NUGMW official, Archie Fairley, who just mops his brow and asks "Are we to have district elections, regional elections, Assembly elections, Westminster elections and European elections?".
That amount of electioneering would bring the whole system into disrepute. We should be perpetually campaigning in this country, which would hardly be good for Britain. We should be dizzy with electioneering.
Therefore I ask my right hon. Friend the Lord President, if he is successful in his venture, to consider having district elections, regional elections and Assembly elections at the same time.
I can see that there are some objections. My right hon. Friend will say "But the Assembly has nothing to do with local government".
That is a matter for dispute, even among pro-devolutionists. Quite a number of people are being chameleon-like on the issue.
At one moment we hear that the Assembly will have little, if anything, to do with local government.
At the next moment we understand that, as far as one can make out, it will be responsible for overseeing most local government functions. But that is by the way. We shall return to the matter on another clause.
My next question concerns by-elections. A series of by-elections for Westminster constituencies can bring about a General Election, but the Assembly is to be for a fixed term of four years. With a series of by-elections, balances could easily be changed.
Could by-election results in the middle of a four-year period cause the whole administration to change, without resort to any kind of Assembly General Election? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) seems to think that it does. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Leon Brittan: I was not seeking to intervene. I was merely assenting to the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Mr. Dalyell: If there can be a change of administration as a result of by-election results, let us take West Lothian as an example of what can happen. Suppose that a by-election result there means that the administration changes and six months later someone else steps under a bus, so that there is another by-election, and the result is different.
Does it mean that the whole administration changes back again? There would be a game of musical chairs, if the hon. Gentleman is right, and we can see certain disadvantages in that. It is no good my right hon. Friend's thinking that that would be an impossible situation. It is all too possible. These things must be thought of now, not later.
I do not know whether it is in order to refer to Amendment No. 111. Are we taking that amendment now, Sir Myer?

The First Deputy Chairman: I think that I announced the grouping of amendments. We are taking Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 with Amendment No. 482. Amendment No. 111 does not come into the present grouping.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: This is not the occasion for discussing elections to the European Parliament but I want to follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East about opinion polls.
I am sceptical about opinion polls, even when they are favourable to my point of view.
But the Assembly policy that we are now discussing was, in the first place, largely dictated by opinion polls and therefore, in this context, opinion polls are far more important than they might otherwise have been.
I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East about the fact that opinion is changing.
In spite of all that the AUEW has said on the matter in the past, I nevertheless welcome the speech made this morning by Mr. John Boyd. Others have also changed their opinion, such as Doctors and chambers of commerce.

The First Deputy Chairman: I did allow—perhaps erroneously—the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) to raise that point, but we are not discussing opinion polls at this stage. That is absolutely out of order.

Mr. Dalyell: As always, I obey the Chair. I just wanted to observe that when matters come to the top of one's in-tray and more thought is required about them, one often changes one's mind.
That is what is happening with the Bill. The more that people know what it is about, the more they change their minds.
Such matters can be decided only by a General Election. Then the reality would become clear and the two choices for the Scottish people would be seen. The choices are: either having more decision making for the regions or having a separate Scottish State.
The real choice of having a separate Scottish State has never yet been given to the Scottish people.
They have never had the knowledge that by their votes they might actually bring about a separate State. At the next General Election there will be every possibility that by putting their crosses on the ballot papers by the names of Scottish National Party candidates a Scottish national government could be brought about. That is something that has never been thought of before as a real possibility. I believe that the Scottish people, in the knowledge that they could bring about the end of Britain and the break-up of Union, that they could dismantle the Union that has served them

so well since 1707, would overwhelmingly reject the views of the Scottish National Party. Then we could return to sensible discussion on constitutional reform.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am glad to be called directly after the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) because, like him, I am opposed to the Bill root and branch, and I also feel an immense responsibility for endeavouring to preserve the Union that has lasted so well and that has had such immense benefits for the people of Britain.
My view is the same as that expressed by Sir Winston Churchill on a similar occasion: I wish that the Government would take the Bill upstairs and cut its dirty throat. But since the Government are unwilling, some of us want to assist them in doing their duty. I could accept the Bill only if there were a clear decision to indicate that the people of the United Kingdom and Britain as a whole were in favour of its principles. This is why I commend the amendment to the Committee. It provides for something that is now not now contained in the Bill—an opportunity for the people of the whole country, and for the people of Scotland, to make a specific decision on the implications of the Bill.
The hon. Member for West Lothian referred to the unpopularity of the Bill. We could all testify to that. The more that is known about the Bill and the more that its long-term implications are made clear, the more the position arises that people who originally supported the fundamental principle are no longer so strongly in favour of the Bill.
The principle of devolution is one thing, but the arrangements set out in the Bill are another. It is as we examine the Bill more closely that we realise that it has been drafted in a slovenly manner and that it will lead to the break-up of the Union.

Mr. Dalyell: During the time that we have spent on the Bill, its supporters have been remarkable for their absence. Where are they? I see my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) who does not share our opinion, but neither does he share the Government's opinion. Where are the rest?

Mr. Rhodes James: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point


because I have endeavoured to be here for the majority of our debates on the Bill and I have been waiting to hear it defended by hon. Members other than those on the Treasury Bench. Yet that defence has failed to come. Hon. Members of the Scottish National Party have spoken from time to time, but we all know where they stand.

Mr. George Reid: While we are talking about slovenly drafting, could we be told why the new Secretary of State for Scotland promised the Scottish people a new Hampden Park paid for out of oil revenues?

Mr. Rhodes James: I was not aware of that.
I commend the amendment to the Commitee, to the House, to Ministers and especially to the Leader of the House who is so keen on matters of constitutional import and on the rights of the House. I recall when the right hon. Gentleman sat on the Opposition benches and his eloquence and fire in defending the principles that I am now modestly endeavouring to put to the Committee.
The Committee is in an intolerable position in having to debate an important clause of the Bill without having the faintest idea of what the referendum clause will contain—either in its details or in its general principles—and until that clause is put down and the Committee has had an opportunity of fully realising the implications of what the Government are up to, then neither the Committee nor the country can be in a position to accept the Bill as it stands, and certainly not to accept it on the basis of the generalised promises that have been given by the Government.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment that has been put down by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). The Bill has come so far on the basis of protestations by the Government that in Wales, in Scotland, and, to some extent in England, the Labour Party has fought two elections on manifestos that included a commitment to provide for elected Assemblies accountable to the people of Wales and Scotland. Therefore, as the Secretary of

State for Wales said in commending the Bill, the debate should be over now and we should be more obsessed with the details of the legislation than with the general regurgitation of principles.
That is a laudable attitude for a Government to have towards legislation—a determination that the Government will seek to carry out their election policies. If that attitude were universal or if there was at least substantial evidence to show that the Government applied that determination to most spheres of Governmental activity that would be a creditable way of approaching the business of being in power.
But there is a danger in such an attitude towards major policies. All that a party would have to do would be to insert in its election manifesto an undertaking, even in vague terms, to make certain changes or to introduce certain legislation. Then because of the mood of the people or incapacity of the Opposition or other reasons for which some Governments lose office while others are elected, that party might gain office. What had previously been an issue that had failed to gather a single vote in the course of an election, an issue upon which not a single question had been asked during the election, and which had not played an important or influential part in the movement of votes, or determined which party should be the Government after the election, would then become prominent.
I am not saying that that is absolutely the case here, in the matter of the devolution proposal for Wales, but it is much nearer the truth than the description given by those who say that devolution was a matter of singular importance and a solemn undertaking at the last two General Elections, and that it is in pursuit of that great promise to the people of Wales and Scotland that the Government are now committed to the Bill and to implementing that promise. I should be the first to concede that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have the most profound long-term belief in a model of government of this general kind, though not specifically the model proposed in the Bill.
Against that background and my convinced belief that the people of Wales did not in any substantial number vote for anything like what is proposed in this


Bill, I listened with interest and, indeed, sympathy to the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East. Had it not been for the announcement by the Government in December, about a referendum, I should unquestionably have been joining the right hon. Lady in endorsing the amendment tonight. But we are now, as I have remarked in earlier debates in Committee, in a different situation.
Many of us pressed for a referendum because of the irreversible nature of this constitutional change. Having secured an undertaking for a referendum, I hope that we can resolve the question conclusively long before the next General Election by putting it through the referendum.
As this is a matter of irreversible constitutional importance, the referendum has another quality to offer which probably makes it superior to a General Election on this or any similar issue. The people of Wales and of Scotland—more of England later—will have an opportunity to express a direct opinion on the Government's proposals and, I hope, on the subject of independence in the referendum with an ease and directness or possibly a freedom which they would not choose to give themselves in the course of a General Election.

Dr. Colin Phipps: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although this is a Bill dealing with Scotland and Wales, we are in fact dealing with a constitutional measure which will affect the whole of the United Kingdom and that, therefore, a referendum in Scotland and Wales will not give the people of England or Scottish and Welsh people living in this country an opportunity to make their views known?

Mr. Kinnock: My answer in some respects must be inadequate. When I first advocated a referendum and specified the questions which I should have liked it to ask, my proposition was that it should embrace not only Wales and Scotland but England. I saw the necessity for the referendum being based on the fact that this was an irreversible constitutional measure. As such, it affected England directly in every possible way: the relationships of England and of English people with Wales and Scotland, the relationships of Welsh and Scottish expatriates

living in England with their mother countries, the financial relationships which we shall be discussing later regarding the block grant, and in many other ways, not least being the representation of Wales and Scotland in the House of Commons. There are dozens of different ways in which legitimately people can argue for taking account directly of opinion in England on the proposals for Scotland and Wales.
4.45 p.m.
For convenience—nothing more—and expedition—nothing more—we must recognise that these proposals are in a Scotland and Wales Bill. The Government have denied that the Bill has direct implications for England and the Chair has not accepted the idea advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, supported by some of my hon. Friends, that the scope of the Bill goes beyond the simple question of Scotland and Wales. We have to abide by that ruling and that tends to prohibit the extension of the debate to matters affecting England. The fact of the matter is that it does affect England, and a facility would be offered to the people of England, if the amendment were accepted, involving as it does a General Election, which is not offered by the referendum. But, because the devolution proposals are offered to Scotland and Wales, because of the ruling of the Chair, and because of the expedition with which we can approach the whole matter of concluding the question of devolution for Wales and Scotland through a referendum, I feel that there are substantial arguments for accepting the idea that the referendum should be for Scotland and Wales only.

Mr. George Cunningham: Although the Chair has ruled that we should not be discussing the consequences for England in the context of this Bill, nothing has been said which means that, if we were to put into the Bill a proposal about a referendum and the result of it, that referendum should take place only in Scotland and Wales. If the Government come forward with a proposal that the referendum should be only in Scotland and Wales, there is nothing to stop us knocking that out and substituting that there be a referendum throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kinnock: That is a proposition—

Mr. Timothy Raison: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps I may answer my hon. Friend's point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. That is a proposition which, when we come to an amendment on the proposal for a referendum—I hope that my right hon. Friend will very soon bring it forward—strongly commends itself to me.

Mr. Raison: I am a little worried about the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Chair's attitude to the effect of the Bill on England. At the beginning of the Committee stage I argued that the Bill clearly concerned England for many reasons which were discussed. One specific reason was that it affected the way in which the English water authorities are managed. That is clearly in the Bill. I do not believe that it can be right that the Chair has given a blanket categorical statement of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I think that the effect of what the Chair said was "Put down an amendment and wait and see what happens".

Mr. Kinnock: I remember the advice of the Chair. It might be appropriate to table amendments on that basis and see how the Chair entertains them in future. The examples referred to by the hon. Gentleman, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did not convince the Chair. I can only hope that the Chair's attitude may be refreshed by longer experience of the Bill when we come next to discuss such an amendment.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman may be correct in saying that this will be an irreversible decision. Am I correct in saying that it is on that that he bases the essential element for having a referendum on this matter? Does he agree that the referendum should be held long before we waste a lot of parliamentary time? Is he contending that the referendum ought to apply to England as well? Does he agree that the difficulty is two-fold: either a referendum throughout England or a very abstruse and difficult process,

which has been put to us by many of our constituents, of trying to extract from England those people who would be qualified to vote in a Scottish and Welsh referendum?

Mr. Kinnock: The latter proposition would probably be so tortuous and abstruse as to make it something of a shambles. The Bill is enough of a shambles already without worsening the position.
As regards the timing, I think that we should have had a referendum on the White Paper. It would have been a perfectly plausible way in which to conduct it. It should have been held a long time ago. Apart from any other advantages that it might have had in not inflating false assumptions and aspirations about what the Bill can provide for Wales and Scotland, it would have saved us a great deal of public money and parliamentary time. Unfortunately, that suggestion did not commend itself to my right hon. Friend when it was put forward by me and by others two years ago.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps if I may continue for a short time. Anticipating one of the arguments which the Government may use against this amendment, they may say that to postpone the first sitting of the Assembly, or at least the elections to the Assembly, until after the next General Election might involve an absolutely intolerable delay in implementing the Government's policy. That might be a valid consideration but I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East, who said that the Bill has so few friends that a delay of that nature might strongly commend itself to people throughout the country and give us a further opportunity for reflection. Also, there is absolutely no reason why, even if the amendment was accepted, it need prohibit the referendum.
Unfortunately I think that the Government do believe that the amendment, if accepted, might inhibit, delay or even prohibit a referendum and, since we are likely to get a more direct and a quicker answer from the referendum procedure than we would from the General Election procedure, I am forced not to give my support to the amendment. But I hope


that the Government will be rather more persuasive in their argument about the appropriate time for the Assembly to sit and that they will explain much more clearly why it was decided to hold a referendum. I hope that the Government will show much greater enthusiasm for holding such a plebiscite than has been apparent so far.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument about the referendum. I would like to pose a question and put a further point to him. If we had—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been sitting here rather impatiently listening to remarks which are not directly within the scope of the amendment. The Leader of the House is present and has heard the arguments that have been put forward. We should not get into an argument on this. Hon. Members have now been provoked into another argument which I regard as entirely out of order.

Mr. Fairgrieve: If there were a referendum covering the whole United Kingdom what would happen if there was a different result in Scotland from the result in England?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall not allow any further discussion on that point. Has the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) finished his speech?

Mr. Kinnock: Yes.

Mr. Powell: I support the principle of the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) but upon somewhat different grounds more fundamental than those which she advanced. They are grounds which I trust may persuade the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to change his mind as to his attitude towards the amendment. I found myself in agreement with a considerable part of his argument.
The proposition of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East was that a General Election would serve as a national post mortem on the legislation, would enable the electorate as it were retrospectively to haul up the Act which had been passed and decide for or against I am afraid that I do not regard that as at all an accurate description of what

happens or what can happen at a General Election. We have just been through an unhappy experience to the contrary. At the 1970 General Election we were assured that the question of Britain entering the European Community was not involved in our vote. When we came of the 1974 General Election, although many of us believed that this question weighted the scales one way rather than another, he would be a bold man who would say that the General Election of 1974 was fought as a post mortem on the European Communities Act 1972.
I simply do not see how it is possible to phrase so precisely or to emphasise so nicely the policies that are put before the country by the respective parties at a General Election that the result can be regarded as having unequivocally decided for or against the advisability of legislation which has already passed through Parliament. After all, there have to be two sides at least to the argument at a General Election, where one imagines—not with a great deal of confidence—the possibility—to test the right hon. Lady's proposition—that the Government would be defending this Bill and putting it forward as one of the principal reasons why they should be returned to office again, with, if possible, an increased majority.
But on the other side it would be expected that the Conservative Party would be expressing its views. It would need to put forward more than the fact that it had virtuously and from time to time opposed this legislation. Would it put up as an alternative the proposition which I understand is its policy—although we have not had much guidance on the matter—namely, a directly-elected Select Committee of this House? That is the rough substance of what appears to have come from the confusion of the Opposition Front Bench. Much as I would like, on this and other questions, to think that we might by means of a General Election have an "Act of Oblivion" of the follies committed in the previous Parliament or even, as used to take place after the supersession of one Roman emperor by another, a damnatio memoriae to wipe out the memory of all that has happened, this is not the nature of a General Election under our constitution.
I appeal, for support of the principle of what the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East put forward, to something more general and more persuasive. I suggest that it is rooted not only in precedent but in fairness and commonsense that whenever we propose to make a fundamental change in the House that change should not take effect until after a General Election. We should not make alterations, and do not make alterations, in the composition or character of the House in mid-stream. If the House is to be altered, then, having passed the law which results in that alteration, we go to the electorate for the renewal of the mandate for the new Parliament which is to sit under the new conditions.
We would do this even if a relatively minor alteration were to be made in the constituencies. If, for instance, belated and overdue justice were to be done to Northern Ireland by bringing its representation up to what might be regarded as a full and fair level, I do not suppose that any hon. Member would suggest that such a change—even a relatively minor change—should take effect until after the next General Election.
5.0 p.m.
I submit that it is a principle of reason and of practice that when the composition of this House is changed the changed composition comes into effect only after a General Election. The example which I gave—which I hope will be less and less hypothetical and more and more practical—is minuscule compared with the alteration which will be made in this House by this Bill. I am not anticipating any amendments which may come before the House in the course of today's sitting or subsequently. I say that this Bill as it stands makes a radical alteration in the constitution of this House such as should not come into effect in accordance with our practice until after a General Election. For it will mean that more than 100 of the 635 Members of this House will sit in the House on a different basis, with different responsibilities and with different functions from those on which they were elected when this House was set up.
This is a point on which those who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland and who have followed the political and constitutional fortunes of that

Province of the United Kingdom are in a position to depose evidence. We know that before 1972, when there was devolved Government in Northern Ireland, hon. Members were elected in relatively small numbers to the service of this House. The mandate that they brought with them, the terms on which they were elected, the subjects which were considered when they were sent to the so-called imperial Parliament, were different from the whole range of the politics of the United Kingdom which was the remit and the background for the election of other hon. Members of this House.
That is a close analogy to what will be the position when the new Scottish Assembly comes into existence and to what will be the situation of the 71 Scottish hon. Members.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Powell: I see that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is about to interrupt me. I recognise that I am once again—and this is in the nature of things—traversing the grounds, I cannot say which he has made his own but which he has traversed so often. Of course I shall not deny him the opportunity to interrupt.

Mr. Dalyell: The point cannot be made too often—

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Yes, it can.

Mr. Dalyell: No, it cannot. If this Bill comes into law there will be diverse subjects which I can raise in Down, South but which I cannot raise in my own constituency. The Minister of State may sigh in irritation, but he has not answered this point because there is no answer. To make matters worse, not only can the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) not vote on subjects involving my constituency but I cannot either.

Mr. Powell: I apply the argument not just to hon. Members of this House but, in the context of this amendment, to the electorate.

Mr. Raison: It must be said that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents hon. Members of the House voting on Scottish matters. It is clear that the structure of the Bill provides that I can continue to vote about housing and education in


West Renfrewshire, for instance. The Government are relying on convention. There is no guarantee that the convention will be observed.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) misunderstands me. I was not assuming any such convention and my argument does not depend upon it, though I agree with him to the extent that the consequence of attempting devolution in a unitary State is so anomalous that there is no end to the anomalies which are generated by this foredoomed attempt.
For the sake of the hon. Member's argument and my argument let me accept that there is no such convention, but still we are concerned with the rights of the electorate. We are concerned about what they thought they were doing when they sent us here. It is right that they should know all the functions that we are going to perform in the House and on what matters we shall represent them. We should not alter that relationship in the course of a Parliament.
At a subsequent General Election, when the Bill is in force and when the Scottish electorate have elected an Assembly to which they will look for administration and legislation over the major part of the range of domestic subjects, then when they elect Members to come to this Parliament of the United Kingdom they will consider them in a different light. They will not say "This is what we want you to do about housing; this is what we want you to do about the organisation of the Health Service; this is what we want you to do about local government in Scotland", and so on. They will logically concentrate, in the choice of their representatives, in the manifestos put before them, on a certain range of subjects only within the totality of matters considered in this House.
It is manifestly right that if there is to be that alteration for the people of Wales and, to a much greater extent, for the people of Scotland, in the true meaning of what they are doing in electing Members of Parliament for this House, that alteration should not come into effect by a side wind in the course of a Parliament which was elected on a different basis.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty that not one elector in 100,000 when he cast his vote in October 1974 said "Let me see. I am electing Members for Scotland or for Wales but before the end of the Parliament to which I am electing them they will, I hope, have removed from their sphere of responsibility" the matters that we are discussing in the Bill. Of course they did not. The October 1974 General Election was a United Kingdom parliamentary election like those which had gone before it. The next General Election—of 1979 perhaps, for the sake of argument—will not be, if this Bill is on the statute book and in action, a United Kingdom General Election, as was the previous one. There will have happened a radical change affecting the whole of the House of Commons, but especially affecting the parts of the kingdom in which devolution will be in force.
Therefore, I say that the amendment is in accordance with constitutional reason and practice. On that ground, if on no other, it deserves the support of the Committee.

Dr. Phipps: There is a particular attraction about the amendment for those opponents of the Bill on this side of the House who, like myself, are not and never have been in favour of referenda. In spite of always being strongly in favour of Britain entering the Common Market, I was opposed to the referendum and I did not vote for it. Referenda are powerful weapons in the hands of any Government and I would prefer to see Governments of this country not in possession of those weapons.
If we do not have a referendum, how are hon. Members such as myself to make judgments about the feelings of the people? How are we to make our judgments about the opinion of the people in the entire United Kingdom? The only option open to us is to have a General Election. There is poetic justice that we should have such an election before we have an election to the Assembly, because it was the election of 1974 that started the whole business off in the first place.
As I have said in this Chamber previously, I do not believe that there is anyone who genuinely believes that the Bill would be before us today but for the


results in Scotland of the February 1974 General Election. One has only to compare the Labour Party manifesto of February 1974 with the Labour Party manifesto of October 1974 to see that that is so. It seems, therefore, perfectly logical that we should have a further General Election to assess how opinion on the Government's devolution proposals has progressed since that period.
The reason why I should like a General Election to be carried out is that it would have an effect upon my hon. Friends who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies, who, I believe, have been persuaded by the Government and by the results of the General Elections of February and October 1974 that a form of devolution, some Bill of this kind, is the only way in which the Labour Party will save Scottish seats. If we were to have a General Election in which it was discovered that there were no great losses of Labour seats in Scotland, I am fairly convinced that this would change the attitude of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the merits of this Bill.
I therefore believe that it would be in the interests of the House of Commons and the country at large if we were to give my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies the opportunity to see whether the Government's proposals have made that major and significant difference.
The Government may argue that, having passed the Bill through the House, we have done so much for Scotland that naturally a grateful Scottish electorate will rebuff the nationalists and return Labour Members to seats, as heretofore. I can only say that if one believes that, the comparison between February and October 1974 is surely in this respect very significant, because in the February manifesto we did not have devolution proposals but in the October manifesto we did have such proposals. The net result was a significant increase in the number of Scottish nationalist Members and in the SNP vote.
I believe, as I am sure do most hon. Members, that in a United Kingdom General Election the people will vote for many and diverse reasons, but basically those reasons are to do with their general economic well-being and their feelings about the two major parties. Much of the voting that went on in 1974, in Scotland

in particular, was a direct response to people's feelings about their general economic welfare and about the standing of the two major parties. I know of Tories in Scotland who voted SNP in the hope of getting a Labour Member out of his seat. I am sure that there are umpteen similar examples that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could bring to bear.
I do not believe that that will happen at the next General Election, whether it is in 1978 or in 1979. I believe that in the next General Election, having given the whole question of devolution a very full airing—the bigger the airing, the better it will be for the result that we shall receive from Scotland and Wales—we should see how the people in Scotland and Wales react. That would give to my colleagues from Scotland and Wales a better idea of exactly how they stand in the views of the electorates there. Let us then return and see whether the whole hotchpotch before us today is worth putting into effect.

Sir Raymond Gower: I should have thought that the Lord President, being a true democrat and attached to the bases of the British constitution, would eagerly accept the amendment. Certainly the amendment ought to commend itself to him and his Cabinet colleagues. After all, rather than the lottery of a referendum—in some ways it is a lottery—the Lord President should prefer a grand inquest of the whole nation of the United Kingdom, as it has been described. That is why I see many things to commend the amendment.
I echo something that was said by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). If we accepted the amendment and held another General Election before the Bill came into operation, we should have the advantage of having the first General Election in which these matters would be a major issue. There is a lot of evidence that in the last two General Elections these matters were not a major issue in the minds of electors.
5.15 p.m.
I understand the point made so clearly by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and there is much in it. Nevertheless, I think that he must, on reflection, accept the fact that this proposal would be somewhat


unusual in that most electors would for the first time have these matters very much in mind. I agree with him that this would not undo the enactment of this legislation, but nevertheless, it would be a very powerful verdict on its virtues or demerits.
The Lord President may say that this is purely an amendment for delay. We do not know. We do not know how long the present Government will last. It may or may not be a considerable time. If the Government went to the country in the autumn, it would not mean a long delay. On the other hand, if the Government went through their full term, there might be some delay. However, these are surely not matters on which we want to make haste. The dangers of this legislation could be far more regrettable than any possible effects of delay.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said that these are unpopular proposals. I am not sure how unpopular they are in different parts of the United Kingdom, but they are unpopular in some parts, and in, for example, many parts of my own constituency. They are unpopular with a large proportion of the electorate. I am not sure that the electorate is wholeheartedly against these proposals. It is only now that the electorate is becoming aware of their implications, despite the fact that the Lord President and his colleagues have told us repeatedly that these matter have been considered and debated for years. Perhaps that is so—but among a few. They have not been considered and debated for years by the mass of the electorate.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it the experience in Wales, as in Scotland, that as soon as groups and particular organisations find that they have to study the proposals in relation to their own interests, the study in itself makes them far more critical?

Sir R. Gower: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. My experience is that it is only now that many people are becoming aware of many of the implications of the Bill. It may be that it is a long time since the first Kilbrandon Report, and it is a long time since we debated it in Parliament. But even in this House we are not all aware

of all the implications. Indeed, not all Members of Parliament are fully aware of them. It is only now that hon. Members are becoming as aware of them as they are.
What is needed is some time for mature reflection. The nation does not need haste in these matters. In some respects these proposals are somewhat unpopular in the minds of many. In some cases that is perhaps because the proposals are not fully understood. In the minds of many, they are also bad proposals. That is a matter for debate. However, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has pointed out, in the minds of very many people the proposals constitute a very serious threat to the continuance of the United Kingdom as we have known it. It is that which concerns myself and many others who have expressed doubt about the Bill.
As I have said, it is not that we are in some partisan way opposed to reasonable measures of devolution, but we cannot see how the Bill as it stands can be reconciled with the maintenance of the United Kingdom. That is why we believe that radical changes in the Bill will be needed if it is to be reconciled with the continuance of the United Kingdom. We also see the danger that these proposals could be enacted and that many people, including those who enacted them, would then regret them bitterly. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, East is giving us all—the whole nation—a chance for more mature consideration. The Bill will be enacted. The amendment will not delay the passing of the Bill but only the putting in hand of its machinery. It will only slightly delay the holding of these elections.
Incidentally, I regard as objectionable some of the actions already taken in anticipation of the passing of the Bill. It is contrary to our constitutional history and practice that large sums should already have been spent on setting up the machinery for a Bill which is not yet law. But that is another question—

The First Deputy Chairman: Yes, it is.

Sir R. Gower: But it is closely related to this question. It illustrates the advantages of accepting the amendment. I would ask the Lord President and those


connected with the Government to prevent any further steps being taken, involving expenditure or otherwise, to put into action the machinery of this Bill before it is passed.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman know of the bewilderment and anger in and around Edinburgh that so much extra money—already over £1 million—should be spent on the Royal High School to make it proper for an Assembly, at the very moment that we are doing away with the Dunfermline College of Physical Education because we cannot afford—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would be well advised to have a safety belt, which might help him to stay in his seat a little longer.

Sir R. Gower: In view of what you have said, Sir Myer, I shall not respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.
The amendment is not inconsistent with the holding of a referendum, but it has many advantages over it. After all, the referendum depends very much on the nature of the question and how it is framed. The proposal in the amendment is for a General Election at which, for the first time, the electors at large will recognise the vital importance of this issue. It will be based not on one or two narrow questions but on the whole principle of this legislation. I therefore hope that the Government will consider the amendment. They could with advantage include it in the Bill: it would improve it.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment.
We have heard a lot about the last election, particularly from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The people of Walton did not make this their main topic of conversation during that election compaign. I can remember no meeting during that election—I addressed quite a few, both in that constituency and in others—at which this matter was raised. I can remember many other issues being raised, but not that one. Therefore, I do not think that the electors had any reflection, let alone mature reflection, on the question, because at that

stage they had not even thought about it. I am not surprised at that, because it is usual that, when electors think about such matters, they do so because they have been discussed, in the country and in the Press, for a considerable time.
It is true that they have thought about the subject in Scotland, and to a limited degree in Wales. The Labour Party of Wales has suggested a new local authority structure, with a Council of Wales as the top tier. It did not put forward the type of proposals that we are now told we have to support.
It would be a good idea to have both the system suggested in the amendment and a referendum. I am opposed to neither.

Mr. Reid: After 10 years of open debate in the Scots area, why should we now wait for the English to catch up?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member shows his usual arrogance on these matters—

Mr. Reid: Not at all.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, in the North-West of England, we have discussed matters applicable to that region of which people have never heard in Scotland. The regional conference of the Labour Party passes resolutions particularly about a transport system for the whole of the region. We cannot impose those resolutions on the party as a whole. They would have to be accepted by the Labour Party as a whole before they became part of the constitution of our movement. We are a unitary body.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Would not my hon. Friend consider that that argument shows one of the main weaknesses of the unitary system?

Mr. Heffer: I think that it proves the reverse.

Mr. Kinnock: So do I.

Mr. Heffer: It is right, in my view, for each area and country to discuss its own problems and suggest its own solutions; I do not say that there are not some local matters which could be accepted locally; but if anything affects the whole United Kingdom, it should be agreed by the whole United Kingdom.
We have now got ourselves into an unholy mess, and the longer our discussions of the Bill go on the bigger mess we shall get into. I have the highest respect for my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but that does not mean that they have not got us into a mess. They have.
How shall we get out of that mess? The amendment is a good idea. Let us have the referendum first; then, if the people decide that they want these proposals, let them be brought in after the next General Election. I should not mind if they were brought in two General Elections after that, but that is a personal opinion and, obviously, I am somewhat biased.

Mr. Reid: But is not the natural result of the next General Election likely to be an enormous Tory majority, with 2 million people unemployed in the United Kingdom, the Labour Party consigned to oblivion for a long period, and the Scots people at that point returning a massive majority for some form of devolution?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must understand that some of us have been in the House a little longer than he. In 1968, I would have predicted, had we had an election, the Labour Party losing by an enormous margin. In fact, when the election came, the result was very narrow, as it was in 1964. Things do not work quite as the hon. Gentleman describes. Despite what is being said throughout the country now, things will look very different by the time of the next General Election. The hon. Gentleman must bear with me and wait. Things will not turn out as he predicts. There might not be a Tory majority at all. We do not know that. That is democracy: the people will have to decide, and we shall have to abide by the results.
I was saying that we should have a referendum first and then wait till after the next General Election—if the people decided that they wanted these proposals —to put them into effect. I would not want the amendment to be an alternative to the referendum.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I believe that the referendum should involve England as well. I take the point that the Scottish people have a right to

express their opinion as Scottish people. The Welsh also have that right. Surely we should have a separate but simultaneous referendum in the three countries at the same time—

5.30 p.m.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) heard me expressing a viewpoint on a referendum. There is nothing before the Committee about a referendum. We should not anticipate what form a referendum might take.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I seek clarification. I entirely accept what you have said, Sir Myer, both when I was speaking and when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helier) was speaking. However, we shall continually bump into this problem. I have tabled three or four amendments requiring that a referendum be held, that it be made the criterion on which certain matters in the Bill are decided, and that certain matters should not take place before a referendum decision. Those amendments have not been accepted by the Chair because of foreseeable events in respect of proposals that we can expect from my right hon. Friends. The present position tends to inhibit us. It is completely logical for us not to pursue a referendum at this moment and obviously you are right, Sir Myer, but the problem is being encountered because of the continuing prevarication—

The First Deputy Chairman: I think that I can anticipate what the hon. Member is about to put to me. It is not for the Chair to decide what shall be placed before the House of Commons for consideration. If that were not the position, I might take some action. As matters stand, I cannot do so.

Mr. Heffer: I shall not argue against your ruling, Sir Myer. What I shall attempt to do, so far as it is within your ruling, is to relate my arguments about a referendum to what was said by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) in terms of the amendment.
It has been suggested that the amendment is the alternative to a referendum.


I am arguing that we can have a referendum and accept the amendment. In fact, a referendum would very much bolster the amendment.
I am not against your ruling, Sir Myer. I accept what you have said. If I were talking directly of a referendum I should be totally wrong.
I am saying that the idea of a referendum should be considered in as much as it involves the English. A referendum should be held separately in the three countries with three questions. I think that the three questions to the people in each country should be "(a) Do you want to be"—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue with that line of argument.

Mr. Heffer: I find it extremely difficult to argue my case in respect of the amendment, Sir Myer, if I am not allowed to pursue this point.

The First Deputy Chairman: The number and type of questions that should be involved in a referendum are not matters that are before us at this stage. They are matters that will probably arise later. If that is so, it will be strictly in order to discuss them. It is not in order at this stage.

Mr. Heffer: With great respect, Sir Myer, the position of England is not before us in the amendment. We are discussing a Scotland and Wales Bill. When the matter was raised originally many of us put forward the view that England was to be affected. We were given an assurance that where England was affected we could, so far as it was within the rules, discuss the matter. How am I to be able to argue a case for the Bill to be held back after the next General Election without discussing the implications for England, which immediately involve the question of a referendum as against or together with a General Election?

The First Deputy Chairman: When I said that in my opinion the hon. Member was out of order he was beginning to list the type and the number of questions that should be put in the referendum. That is not in order at this stage. We are not discussing a referendum as such.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Myer. In proposing the amendment the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) made great play of the fact that it was extremely unsatisfactory that we did not have a referendum clause before us. Further to that point of order, Sir Myer, at the very beginning of our proceedings in Committee some of us raised the whole issue of what was likely to be in order and what was not with the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Chairman said that at each stage of the Bill he would consider the problems as they arose. That was his undertaking. I am not criticising your ruling, Sir Myer, but I ask that they be considered by the Chairman. You are the toughest of our Chairmen, Sir Myer, and I ask that the whole issue that has arisen between you and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) be considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means and other likely Chairmen. This issue will arise time and again in the coming weeks and months.

The First Deputy Chairman: I shall confer with the Chairman of Ways and Means on the ruling that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) says was delivered from the Chair. This is not a matter of toughness. I am not anxious to be tough. I wish that my wife would think I am tough. If that were so, I should be very happy. The position is that I am trying to observe the Standing Orders. To make reference to a referendum is one thing, but to go into the questions that one wants inserted is, in my opinion, out of order.

Mr. Onslow: I wonder whether it would help, Sir Myer, if I put the matter to you in the following terms. I do not want to challenge your ruling, Sir Myer, that any pre-emptive discussion on the terms of the referendum that the Government may one day bring before us would be out of order, but that is not the point, as I understand it, that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is on. Indeed, it is not the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) was on when she moved the amendment. They are seeking to argue that if the amendment were carried it would provide time for a different referendum. It is the terms


of that different referendum that the hon. Gentleman wants to put before us.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is probably a flexible interpretation of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said. My hearing is quite good, and I understand the hon. Gentleman to be about to list the questions that should be put in a referendum. I shall study Hansard tomorrow, and if I am incorrect I shall make due apology. I understood that he was going on to list the number of questions and to discuss the nature of the questions.

Mr. Heffer: I shall not challenge your ruling. Sir Myer. I have never regarded you as being the toughest of our Chairmen. I have always regarded you as being very fair, especially when you have ruled in my favour. When you do not rule in my favour I may take a somewhat jaundiced view, as does every hon. Member at such a moment. I think you are absolutely right, Sir Myer, in keeping to the constitution of the Committee.
I hope that I shall not step over the bounds of order by saying that in supporting the amendment it is important not to view it as the alternative to a referendum. I think we can do both. I accept that it will give us the opportunity of putting forward a comprehensive referendum in which we can put a number of questions to the people, not just one question or two questions.
In my opinion three questions would be much more suitable.
I shall not list the questions as I am not allowed to do so, but they could deal with matters such as independence, the status quo, or whether the people support the Government's proposal. That would be a way in which it could be done. We could have a comprehensive referendum held separately but simultaneously. We would have to abide by the decisions. If the people of Scotland wanted independence and they voted for it, they should have it. If they wanted the status quo, they should have it.
If the English vote is to be separated from Scotland and Wales, let them be separated. Who knows what they might decide? It will be an interesting decision. The English might suddenly become perverse and say "We want

nothing to do with anybody else". That might be their decision, and that would be democracy at work. That is what I am arguing on this amendment. That would be wise, because people could be properly consulted in a comprehensive referendum.
If the next election should come in 1979 or 1978, we could decide to put this provision into operation if the people wanted that to happen. That would mean that there would have been mature reflection. I believe that the people of England and Wales are only just beginning to get to grips with this subject. They did not know what it all involved. I think that also applies to many Scots.

Mr. Reid: No.

Mr. Heffer: It may be that many Scots have voted for the SNP over a period of time, but I believe that on many issues the people have not seen the results they deserve.

Mr. Reid: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember saying only a few months ago that but for the advent of the SNP he would not have realised that he was English? Did he not imply that he did not know what he was before that? What does that situation do in terms of the hon. Gentleman's Englishness?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. I did not say that I did not know I was an Englishman. I have a feeling that I have known for a long time that I am English, but I was not conscious that I was an Englishman until I heard constant speeches from the SNP Benches about Scottish nationalism. That began to make me feel consciously an Englishman. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should feel so pleased about that. I regard it as a step backwards, because I thought that we had got rid of that kind of narrow nationalism in the United Kingdom.
I appreciate, Sir Myer, that I am straying again, but I had not intended to do so. I merely wished to clarify the position. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. Raison: Once again in this debate the critics of the Bill have made all the running in the argument against the Government. No wonder the Lord President


looks more and more dejected and disconsolate.
We recognise that the Bill is of profound and constitutional importance, but I wish to take up the question whether the Government have some kind of mandate for the Bill. The arguments in favour of a General Election advanced by both sides are enormously powerful, but I have a shrewd suspicion that when the Minister replies to the debate he will say that the Labour Party had such a proposal in its election manifesto of October 1974 and therefore it must be all right. No doubt that will be the corner stone of the Minister's reply.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scot-Land (Mr. Harry Ewing): I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was also in the Conservative Party's manifesto of 1974.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Raison: It was certainly in the Labour Party manifesto of October 1974. The passage read:
The next Labour Government will create elected assemblies in Scotland and Wales".
A special Labour Scottish manifesto said:
The Labour Party believes in the Scottish people having a greater say in their own affairs. We shall set up a Scottish Assembly with control over its own expenditure.
In other words, Labour said it was committed to an Assembly, but it never said that at the same time it was committed to an Executive.
The feature of the Bill and the respect in which it differs from the point of view advanced by some of my hon. Friends is that it is based on the notion of an Executive. Let nobody think that that is an unimportant part of the Government's proposals. It is crucially important. This is set out in Clause 21(2) of the Bill as follows:
The members of the Scottish Executive shall exercise on behalf of Her Majesty such of her prerogative and other executive powers exercisable in or as regards Scotland as relate to devolved matters.
That is a major function given to the Executive under this Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: The document "Scotland will win with Labour" said:
The Kilbrandon Report proposed the abolition of the Secretary of State for Scotland,

and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. We reject both these proposals as being damaging to Scotland's interest. We shall retain the office of Secretary of State. Scotland will continue to have its full complement of 71 MPs.
Hon. Gentlemen who speak of manifesto commitments should not be too selective.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am trying to refresh my memory about the amendment we are discussing. So far as I understand the situation, we are discussing Amendment No. 482. We are not so much concerned with manifestos and all the rest of it.

Mr. Raison: The point I am trying to make is not dissimilar.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman so far has not said anything about holding such a referendum after the next General Election.

Mr. Raison: I have referred to arguments about holding the matter over to a General Election. I suspect that the Government will claim that they had a mandate at the October 1974 election. I am making the point that they have not a mandate for this Bill because it proposes, on top of an Assembly, an Executive. That was never mentioned by Labour in any number of manifestos leading up to the October 1974 campaign. If I am wrong I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the point is a valid one—namely, that there is no mandate for this objectionable Bill. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that a retrospective mandate will be conferred by a General Election, whenever that happens.
I followed with interest the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the pros and cons of referenda and General Elections. However, I do not now propose to go into the subject of a referendum. I merely wish to make the point that we are talking about a different animal, and indeed a strange animal. It has been said that it is intended to take the bureaucracy nearer to the Scottish people by creating a new Scottish Executive. I looked into the situation and I was intrigued to find that the Scottish Department now employs 8,000 civil servants in Scotland, and only 60 in London. It is proposed to remove half


the figure of 60 to Scotland and to provide a new Executive involving an extra 750 staff in Scotland. That will not take the bureaucracy nearer to Scotland because it is already there. All that will happen is that the Bill will add to that number. However, I shall not pursue that point.

Mr. Reid: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that Lord Kilbrandon, on whose report many of the arguments have been advanced, has, since publication, argued that a new relationship will be established between Scotland and Brussels, given our entry into the Common Market? Therefore, Edinburgh will talk directly to Brussels and the layers of government in Scotland will be the Scottish Assembly, the Executive and Community action.

Mr. Raison: I do not accept that, and in any case it is not relevant. One of the objectives of the Bill is to ensure that the relationship with Brussels continues under the United Kingdom Government and is not a devolved matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) has said, the Government cannot claim a mandate for setting up the Scottish Executive. Nor are there reasons for it in logic, common sense or anything else. The truth is that the Bill is a ramshackle mechanism which is rapidly losing friends on all sides. It is the result of a panic in 1974 about the situation in Scotland. There was the grubby panic in the Government over the question of a referendum. Now there are signs of panic in the Government about the question of representation in this House. The proposal to hold a referendum after the Bill gets through is largely to do with the fact that the number of genuine friends of the Bill is very small.
It is not just the anti-devolutionists who are profoundly unhappy. The Liberals are unhappy. They want some kind of federal system. They do not really know what they mean by it, but that is what they believe they want. The Scottish National Party is being hypocritical. It says that it wants the Bill but we know that it really does not accept it except as a means of disruption. The Bill confers no real power on Scotland and in reality the SNP is against the set-up.
Hon. Members opposite are not happy, and some have the guts to say so. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is making his views increasingly clear, and several others are in the same boat. But we know that, sitting in the Tea Room at the moment, any number of Labour Members are saying, "How can we get rid of the Bill?" That is the reality. We want to see them have the guts to come in the kick against the Bill.
If the Government by some chance get the Bill, there is every reason to demand that the mere passing of the Bill and the mere holding of a referendum should not be the final word, and that the Bill should be deferred until after the next General Election, when the point can really be put to the test.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Having listened to all the speeches so far, it seems to me that there is one general feeling and three arguments. The general feeling is that, at all costs, we must have a test of some kind before what is in the Bill is put into operation. It seemed to me, as it did to some of my hon. Friends, that the argument of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) was to pose her amendment as the alternative to a referendum. In other words, accepting that the will of the people must be made known, she argued that, in place of a referendum for that purpose, there should be a General Election.
There are two things wrong with that proposition. First, it misunderstands the Scottish situation. Time does not stand still, and waters flow under various bridges. We face a difficult and obscure situation which at all times is highly dangerous. Those with some background in thinking of the movement of society might try to understand the dangers of the situation in Scotland rather than making the sort of juvenile intervention that we had from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). The second error of the argument for a General Election first lies in equating a General Election with a specific situation.
I do not believe that General Elections have been, are or will be, fought on a single issue. It is not the case that the next one can be or will be fought solely


on the issue of devolution or on the issue of independence. It will be fought on a variety of issues, primarily by two of the parties in relation to what kind of Scotland, what kind of society, we want, what kind of public intervention we want.
It will not be so fought by the third party. That party will be concerned not with what kind of Scotland or what kind of society we want, but with independence, which is a different objective altogether. There will be a clash in which the arguments of those who favour an alternative position to that of the third party will not emerge properly. That will not be the sole issue for the bulk of the people. The general situation will impinge on the principle of the non-single issue election, and such a situation is well sustained in our history.
The trouble we face is that the third party will not succeed in having the election conducted on the single issue. It will be unable to do so because those who are also concerned with other matters will be involved and will discuss those other matters. In any case it must be understood by those who argue for an election as opposed to a referendum that the Scottish National Party has not won seats on the single issue of independence. The polls show that less than half of the SNP's support comes from people accepting its policy on that single issue. It wins on a number of other things as well—for example, the question of not liking Strathclyde, the question of the kind of school one's kid goes to, the state of the roads. If it wins, it does so on a number of things, not on a single issue. It is unable to keep to a single issue because people are concerned with other things, such as employment, and because of the desire of the other parties not to make a single issue. The SNP will be beaten in the end by that fact.
It follows, therefore, that one can get a result for a single-issue party arising out of a number of other reasons. If, however, we believe, rightly, that this single issue is qualitatively different from such arguments as those about the nature of Government intervention in industry, the National Health Service, comprehensive education, and so on—all the things that people are concerned with—it is proper that it should be taken separately. That is the argument for the referendum.
The argument is two-fold. First, it is a single issue above and apart from normal political differences; secondly, it is right that the Scottish people should decide on that issue. That cannot be done in a General Election. It can only be achieved by a referendum. It is important to understand and hold to that. But the rumours about the form of the referendum are disastrous. There is no major point in having a referendum alone on devolution. That will not settle the problem either of devolution or of independence in Scotland. It must also be buttressed by the option for independence.
I willingly accept the third option of the status quo. There is a difference between voting for devolution or not and for independence or not, without having a question about the status quo. In that case, it would be argued that people voted against the devolution Bill because they wanted more. That has indeed been argued over the last 12 months or two years. Whenever there has been a vote against devolution the SNP argued that people wanted more powers.
6.0 p.m
The SNP would have said that about yesterday's public opinion polls were it not for the fact that the status quo question was put in. It showed that 32 per cent. of the population did not want any devolution at all. The only way to get an accurate reflection of the situation is to have a referendum on the single issue involving devolution, independence and the status quo. That is the first reason why I must reject the proposition put forward by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East.
The second aspect concerns delay. In that regard I feel there is a failure to understand the situation in Scotland. It is one thing for the Scottish people to willingly decide that there should be delay or to willingly decide to reject the propositions in the Bill. It is quite another thing for the Bill to be delayed or rejected by this House. The worst possible position would be for the Bill to grind on and apparently expose the ineptitude of Westminster rather than be passed and decided by the Scottish people.
We would inevitably have the deprivation syndrome arising. People would say "We have been deprived of that which


we sought", even if they were not seeking it the day before. That would be the worst of all propositions.
That points to the necessity of a referendum, and not a General Election, which avoids the sense of delay and the sense of another group of people being deprived.

Mr. Heffer: Would it not be much better if we had a referendum first, so that if people wanted the Bill we could then go ahead with it, but if they did not want it we could abandon this nonsense altogether?

Mr. Buchan: That may be true, but there is no argument for delaying the Bill here. We must get the Bill through, so that we can have a referendum as soon as possible. It is a reasonable proposition to say that people should know what they are voting for. If we are to have a referendum on a single issue, that single issue should be properly known and understood. For that to be achieved, the Bill must go through the House, because there are 1,000 amendments which could change it before it is put to the vote.
The third and most serious argument was put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said there was a total objection in principle to having a change that affects the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents within the lifetime of a single Parliament. That was the most constitutional and reasoned argument that was put forward. I do not accept it. The two examples that the right hon. Gentleman used do the opposite. His first argument concerned the EEC.

Mr. Powell: My reference to the EEC was in the context of showing that a General Election is not effective as a post-mortem upon legislation in the previous Parliament. My main argument was connected with a change in the nature of this House.

Mr. Buchan: Neither a pre- nor postmortem situation would be effective, because in 1970 we foretold the kind of disasters that we would be led into.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that joining the EEC has been a major constitutional change, which has affected the relationship between the Member of

Parliament and his constituents. There is no constitutional precedent for the right hon. Gentleman's saying that such a change should not occur between elections, on the ground that it has not so changed in the past. The EEC is such a precedent because it dramatically altered the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituents.
Admittedly, some of us warned that it would. But it cannot be said to have been a burning issue at either the pre-or post-elections. We said "Elect me and I shall make such and such a decision or try to bring about such and such decisions". Halfway through the life of the Parliament those decisions were removed from us. That is exactly on the same lines as what is now proposed. If we are looking for a precedent, we have a very good one. It is not one I accept but it is about the only one we can look at reasonably.
The other example which the right hon. Member used concerned Northern Ireland, but decisions made about Northern Ireland were made in the tranquil waters of removing one Stormont and recreating another. The timetable governing the changes in Northern Ireland was dictated by the force of political events in Northern Ireland. That is the point. I believe it is the force of political events in Scotland that should also determine our attitude on this matter.
I therefore cannot accept that the proper way to deal with this issue is to have a General Election. I cannot accept that the needs of the times demand we should have delay or that we should seek to delay. I cannot accept that it is a substitute for a referendum. On all counts the amendment must be rejected.

Mr. David Steel: I briefly want to draw attention to Amendment No. 93, which has been selected alongside the amendment that we are now discussing. It is in precisely the opposite sense to the amendment that we are now discussing.
I agree with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) against delay and against the highly specious argument that this matter should be put off until after another General Election. But I do not want to go into that now; the


point that I want to raise is that the Bill itself does not specify an appointed day for the first elections.
All ministerial statements have pointed to the intention of holding elections in 1978. Clause 3 specifies that subsequently every election will be held on the third Thursday in March in the fourth year following the date of the first election. To me it is an extraordinary feature of the Bill that the whole process for which we are now legislating cannot be triggered off until the Secretary of State makes an order specifying the first election date.
In some of the speeches that we have heard already there have been references to changes of attitudes following General Elections. What we are really saying is that if we leave the Bill as it stands we are passing into statute something which may never come about at all if there is a change of attitude either on the part of the present Government or, as a result of a General Election, a switch of parties in power before 1978. They are both possibilities.
My colleagues and I would prefer to see written into the Bill a specific election date in March 1978 rather than simply leave it open to the Secretary of State to issue the necessary orders. By that time the Secretary of State may have changed. Parliament's attempt to carry out what we promised to the people at the last election could be wholly frustrated by a change of attitude or political circumstances. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that several powerful arguments had been advanced in support of this amendment. He and I obviously see these matters very differently. I thought that the arguments were less than persuasive. I have come to the conclusion that there is considerable disingenuousness behind the amendment. In saying that, I do not imply that the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) is being deliberately specious. In my view, it is more a case of the wish being father to the thought, the wish being to see the Bill killed and the thought that the best way to go about it is to scotch it by introducing an element of delay.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was ingenious with his theory that, somehow, the elector in Scotland and to a lesser extent the elector in Wales would have been deceived if these Assemblies were established before the end of this Parliament, in that the Members of Parliament whom those electors had sent here would not be performing their functions in exactly the way that the electors would have expected if the Assemblies had not been established.
My view is far less charitable than the right hon. Gentleman's about the relationship between the elector of his Member of Parliament and his understanding of the nature of the duties and functions of a Member of Parliament. My practical experience is to the contrary. Every week, I get between five and 10 letters from my electors asking me to get them council houses, for example. Of course, I have no responsibility for the allocation of council houses. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he feels that this close relationship is a major issue of principle here, he is being, if not precious, a little too charitable to the elector and, possibly, to the Member of Parliament as well.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Does not the illustration which the hon. Gentleman has just given show precisely the closeness of the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituency? The electors know that the hon. Gentleman has no power to give them council houses. But they believe that he is here to use his influence on their behalf. That shows the closeness of the relationship be-between the Member and his electors.

Mr. Ellis: I accept that entirely. There is a close relationship in the sense that the elector expects his Member of Parliament to do everything possible for him. However, I understood the right hon. Member for Down, South to be making some point of constitutional principle here rather than making reference to a personal lobby by a Member of Parliament on behalf of one of his electors.
I cannot help concluding, therefore, that behind the amendment there is a degree of disingenuousness, the theory being that, if the snake cannot be killed, it must be scotched. For that reason, I feel unable to support the amendment.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) spoke about having a General Election as a kind of inquest, and the right hon. Member for Down, South described it as a post mortem. Their choice of words was unfortunate, because I like to think that this Bill is giving birth rather than causing death. But, assuming that it will be an inquest, I cannot help being unclear in my mind about the precise nature of the inquest. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) dealt admirably with the inquest argument, but I cannot help feeling that during our discussions on this Bill arguments have been advanced by its opponents based on the theory that the people of Wales and Scotland, to say nothing of those of England, are not interested in the Bill, and that it is one big yawn. If that is the case, it does not seem likely that it will be a very sound inquest if, after the Bill is passed, we have a General Election on this very issue.
I remind the Committee that, when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) announced the findings of the Kilbrandon Commission, his statement in the House was greeted by the majority of English Members either with ribald laughter or with big yawns. Therefore, I cannot be persuaded by the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members who represent the English regions and who feel that we in Scotland and Wales are doing a great disservice to them. It has been open to them to discuss this subject just as it has been to right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: What is my hon. Friend alluding to when he speaks of English Members and their ribaldry? May I remind him that in recent times a number of his Welsh colleagues, including the Secretary of State, devised a document for readers in the Principality against devolution?

Mr. Ellis: I was not speaking about individual Members; I was merely answering those who have made charges that, somehow, England will suffer greatly and that English Members have not had an opportunity to take part in our discussions. They have had just as much

opportunity as any other hon. Member, from whichever part of the United Kingdom he may come.
In summary, I say that on the ground of the amendment's disingenuousness, I shall vote against it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: I rise to support this amendment in an almost unique position. I find myself called immediately after the only Government supporter present who speaks regularly in favour of the Bill. It is an incredible situation that hardly any right hon. or hon. Member opposite supports the Government, and this was reflected in the opinion poll yesterday which showed that there were more Labour voters in Scotland against the Bill than there were in favour of it. I wonder whether it has ever happened before that a Government have been unable to get anyone on their Back Benches to support one of their proposals and have found that their own supporters in Scotland have not wanted it. The whole Bill is crumbling before the Government's eyes. The tragedy is that it will take six wasted months in this House to see it crumble away to nothing.
I said that I intended to speak in support of this amendment, but I do so with considerable reservations. They are not those of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who advanced some dubious idea that an hon. Member who was against a Bill should not seek to amend it. That is a very dangerous principle. I am against the Bill as a whole, but I shall seek to amend it as we go along. Although I think that the Bill probably will crumble away, there is always a chance that it will be passed in an amended or distorted form. The principle advanced by the hon. Member for West Lothian, therefore, should be disavowed before it gains any credence.
In my view, the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Ulster should have some chance to vote on this Bill before it is put into operation. Whether that is done at a General Election or in a referendum is a matter for debate. But it would be quite wrong to make such a major constitutional change without the people having a chance to vote on precisely what that change is to be and not simply on White Papers or ideas.
I shall not deal at any length with the objections to a referendum. We do not know the details of the proposed referendum. It is extraordinary that one of the major features of this legislation has not been divulged. But if, for want of a better term, an Englishman living in England is not to be allowed to vote in a referendum, it is totally wrong, because he is part of the United Kingdom and these proposals affect the United Kingdom. If, for want of a better term, a Scotsman living in England is not allowed to vote, that, too, is totally ludicrous.
I do not know how to define "a Scotsman", but it would be news to me if Scottish football selectors or, for that matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) were to say that people playing football in England were not eligible to play football in Scotland. Such a proposal might be to the detriment of Scottish sides. But if it is good enough to choose a Scotsman on that sort of occasion, it must be good enough for a Scotsman living in England to vote in the proposed referendum. The idea that the referendum should exclude Englishmen living in England or Scotsmen living in England invalidates it from the start.
I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) about the difficulty of regarding a General Election as a kind of pseudo-referendum. The hon. Gentleman is right. A General Election would not have as its sole constituent the rights or wrongs of devolution. In Scotland certainly—and I suspect the same is true for the rest of the country—the next election will be fought on the creation of steady jobs, the cutting of taxation and the restoration of prosperity. It will not be about devolution. If we seek to show that the next election will say either "Yes" or "No" to the Government's Bill on devolution, we are at fault.
A lot of people think that at the next election the Labour Party is likely to be massacred in Scotland, not because of the contents of this Bill, bad though it is, but because it has created 183,000 unemployed and has allowed inflation to rip ahead.

Mr. John Robertson: According to an opinion poll published in

Glasgow today, the Tories also would be massacred.

Mr. Sproat: But the Tories do have a lead over the Labour Party, and I anticipate that that trend will continue. However, I do not want to go into that now.
As I was saying, a General Election in Scotland, let alone other parts of the United Kingdom, would not be a fair way of testing whether this Bill is acceptable to the people of Scotland. It may well be that those who register their protest against the Labour Party may misguidedly give support to the Scottish National Party. If that occurred, it would not be a vote for independence. No doubt the Scottish National Party would seek to take it as such. I approach this amendment with certain reservations because of the false construction which could be placed on it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) spoke more wisely than she knew in proposing the amendment, but when she said that the General Election would be a kind of super-referendum she was on to one of her weaker points. The key point of the debate is the "Powell principle"—I call it that because it was an inarticulate assumption until the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) enunciated it—which is that there should be no change in the balance, structure and powers of the constitution of this country until the people have had a chance to vote on it. We should not change something so delicately and nicely balanced as the British constitution without letting the people give their view on it. I shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. Onslow: I should like to put forward one or two reasons that prompted me to put down Amendment No. 94 in my name, which is, in all important respects, identical to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). The only difference is the fact that it comes four or five words later in the clause. Most of the arguments have been deployed already. However, no one has yet said that most people outside this House like to feel that the amendment is totally unnecessary. If it is a fact that the Government intend to time the Assembly elections for the spring of next


year, I would hope that we would have a General Election before then so that the purpose of the amendment will be achieved.
Although I am fairly sure of the way in which the Scottish National Party will vote on this amendment, so far not one of them has told us how or why they will vote.

Mr. Reid: Stick around.

Mr. Onslow: If I have prompted the hon. Member to get up and make a speech instead of interrupting everyone else's, maybe I shall earn the criticism of other hon. Members. I will not give way to the hon. Member. Perhaps that will stop his chauvinistic, jack-in-the-box tricks before they begin.
The Scottish National Party would claim that it is very important to have the Assembly elections before a General Election. It would say that while it is true that General Elections are not fought on a single issue, with anything like luck the SNP would be able to make sure that the Assembly election was fought on a single issue—the unpopularity which it hopes to create for the other contestants in an election. I am in no doubt that at the moment we have an appallingly bad Government. That is a widely shared view both inside and outside this House, and the Scottish National Party will not seek to conceal that fact. I can go along with it in claiming that the Labour Party is the party of high unemployment, that it is riddled with Trotskyists and that it is living in the past, with no solutions to the problems of the United Kingdom as a whole or Scotland in particular.
The Scottish National Party is not particular about the weapons it uses, and no doubt it will magnify and distort any divisions it detects inside the Conservative Party, and it will do everything it can to exploit the Assembly elections for its own interests. If the SNP is successful in that in the next 12 months or so, we shall have an unhappy situation for the Union as a whole. There may well be many people in Scotland who will be taken in by the pretension of the SNP. That party hopes a great many will be taken in, but I do not believe the number will be that great.
If a General Election took place before the Assembly election the mood of Scotland would be very different, and I think I know the result. If Labour Members honestly believe that their party would win because it had recovered the confidence of voters in all parts of the country, and if they believe that the next Government elected would have much greater popular support throughout the country than this one, then they must see that the reaction in the Assembly elections would be much less detrimental to the union as a whole.
I try to emphasise the importance of political dynamism, if I may call it that, because it is very important that if the Bill goes forward and the Government get their way, the Government and the country should be saved from the consequences of official folly. It will be in the long-term interests of the Union—on which the majority of people place more importance than allegiance to any particular party—that this business of the Assembly election should wait until we have the whole question of a General Election settled in a way which commands much more popular support.

Mr. Fred Evans: I have much sympathy with the feelings of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). One aspect referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and a number of other speakers at the beginning of this debate is part and parcel of the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East. She said that even if a referendum were held the operation of the results should take place after a General Election.
The argument that frightened me very deeply was the adducing of just who should take part in the referendum, and the plea that recognition of the rights of Scottish and Welsh people living in England should form part and parcel of this picture.
The right hon. Lady said that in the calm atmosphere of this House, and that frightened me, because I do not know by what objective yardstick—or perhaps I should say "footstick"—we shall reach a definition of a Welshman. Not even the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has dared to tell us exactly what is a Welshman. When it comes to defining


people who have a strong identity, such as the Welsh and the Scots, and establishing some kind of objective criteria, are we simply going to use that definition as another stick with which to beat the beast of Westminster? That causes me a great deal of worry.
6.30 p.m.
I had considerable sympathy with the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East and even more with the point of view advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that this kind of revelation takes us back to the original fears which so many of us had and which relate to practically every clause in the Bill.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Since it is proposed that the two Assemblies should have clearly defined functions in specific territories, would it not be simpler to agree that people should take part in the referenda if they live in those territorial regions?

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The Chair must intervene at this point. We are now getting on to the question of referenda, but the amendment deals with the question of timing.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Murton. Your predecessor in the Chair ruled on this matter earlier. He said that the absolute specifics of the question of referenda were out of order, but that the general principles might be adduced in a general argument, and that is what has subsequently happened.
The Committee should be extremely careful in considering every amendment. The group of amendments, such as that group now before us, are of fundamental importance on the very issues on which this Bill rests—the impact of the Bill on the United Kingdom and what might happen to the United Kingdom.

Sir Nigel Fisher: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) that the people should be allowed to vote on this important constitutional matter either at a referendum or in a General Election. I agree also with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it is high time that Parliament was told the

terms of reference of the referendum and who will be allowed to vote in it. I agree also with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that we should be told when the referendum is to be held.
The change in Scottish opinion about devolution, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) drew attention, might persuade the Lord President to give us this information sooner than he otherwise would, because it is clear that, as the content and effects of the Bill become better known in Scotland, the swing against it becomes more and more marked. So, if the Government want a good vote in favour of their Bill, the Leader of the House had better get on with the referendum process. Already the latest opinion poll in Scotland shows that a large majority are against separatism. That deals with the arguments advanced by the SNP. More important, however, is that the poll reveals that one-third of the people are against any form of devolution. This swing is gathering momentum and the longer the Government delay the referendum the greater will be the chance that the Bill will be killed by the votes of the Scottish people, either in a referendum or at a General Election.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps it is too sweeping to say that that opinion poll result deals with the SNP case. In the poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred, 7 per cent. of the supporters of the SNP are recorded as not wanting an Assembly and as wanting no change. That only shows some of the complexities of Scottish politics.

Sir N. Fisher: That is a valid point. To be more accurate, I should have said that the result deals with the pretensions of some Members of the SNP to represent the views of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Fred Evans: Assuming the truth of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he not agree that in the interim the growth of tensions and ill feeling, to put them at their mildest, may even lead to active hatred? Might this not be such that in the final analysis the application of the hon. Gentleman's ideas would be much more difficult?

Sir N. Fisher: That is the hon. Gentleman's point of view.

Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the 7 per cent. of the SNP supporters who want no change have been more than balanced out in the past three opinion polls by the 9 per cent. of Conservatives in Scotland who want independence?

Sir N. Fisher: I shall be coming to the Conservative Party. I am never in the least merciful to my own Front Bench in discussing this subject. I intend to deal as severely with my colleagues as I did with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Of course, I am opposed not only to the Bill but to the whole concept of devolution, as I have said many times in this House. The best thing would be to delay the referendum. I used to be in favour of an early referendum in order to save parliamentary time, but I am beginning to feel that the longer the referendum is delayed the better because in the interim period opinion will continue to mount against the Bill.
We should adopt the suggestion in the amendment, which I support. But it is highly probable that the next General Election will return a Conservative Government, so the attitude of the Conservative Party towards the whole principle of devolution may become highly relevant if we accept the amendment tonight. So far, I regret to say, the official position of my party on the principle has been—I use as neutral a word as possible—somewhat ambivalent. I understand why, although I do not approve. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to note one important figure in today's opinion poll: the majority of Conservatives in Scotland do not want any devolution at all. Those people have no party to vote for on this issue, because every party is committed to some form of devolution.
My purely personal view is that the Unionist Party should come out clearly for the Union and thus give Unionists in Scotland the opportunity to vote, either in the referendum or in the next General Election, not only against the Bill but against the whole principle of devolution. I urge my right hon. Friends, in the light of the majority view of the Scottish Conservative

voters, to reconsider their attitude to the principle and to go into the next General Election as a Unionist party, as, hitherto, we have always been.

Mr. Reid: After 10 years' deep debate on these issues in Scotland, the English message to the people of Scotland is simply "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today", except for the Shadow Secretary of State, who wants jam for Scots people all over the place all the time.
This has been a pleasant debate, although it has strayed into quite delicious highways and byways. We have considered the impossibility of English football teams playing in Scotland, although Berwick Rangers play in Scotland at present. We have looked at the newly acquired Englishness of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We have debated the consequences of the last referendum on the European Communities, without considering the possibility of a referendum in Scotland on separate Scottish representation within the EEC.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Reid: Having seen the boredom shown on the Treasury Bench by the Lord President, who has been yawning throughout the debate, and the glazed look behind the spectacles of his junior Ministers as they sit through hours of this tedious debate, I think that the time has come for a halt. As one of the most doveish of the doves in the Scottish National Party, I say to the Minister that the time for the guillotine is now at hand. If we are to continue going through this nonsense hour by hour, night by night—as we obviously are—the time has come to bring this debate to a conclusion.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting well out of order by referring to a guillotine. That is not the subject of the amendment.

An Hon. Member: Why does not the hon. Gentleman go home?

Mr. Reid: I intend to go home to Scotland as fast as possible. I shall go home faster after what has been said tonight by the yeoch yeochs on the Tory Benches about Hampden Park. They did not know about the promise by the


Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland that a new national football ground would be paid for out of oil revenue, and all that some hon. Members could say was that they did not know where it was. I hope that that is reported in the Scots Press tomorrow.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand the hon. Member's passion to see the Bill proceed, but will he have a care before using the word "nonsense" to describe the attempt by many hon. Members of all parties to defend what they genuinely believe to be the unity of the United Kingdom? Will he also recognise that although we understand the passion of the tiny minority that he represents in the United Kingdom as a whole, there are many of us, particularly representing English seats, who are not satisfied that a minority of the people in the United Kingdom should fasten their ideas upon the overwhelming majority who do not want them?

Mr. Reid: Those ideas were contained in the hon. Gentleman's party's manifesto in Scotland in October 1974. My hon. Friends and I suspect that it was simply a convenient mouthing. If this debate were about Banaban, Labour Members would be on their feet demanding freedom for the people of Banaban and pushing on with the debate.
On the other side, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has produced two arguments over the past month. His first, which we heard tonight, in his usual soft voice, was simply that reason should prevail in this debate in terms of all the peoples of the United Kingdom. I accept that. But the right hon. Gentleman was advancing a different argument a few months ago. He then said that if the Scottish people wished themselves to be a nation, they should prove themselves to be so at the polls. In terms of this amendment that is nonsense. If we prove ourselves to be a nation as the right hon. Gentleman said, we shall have a majority in Scotland representing the Scottish National Party, yet under the amendment we would not be able to effect that majority politically in our relationship with England and the European Community.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has the argument upside down.

Mr. Reid: Lastly, I come to debates, rather similar to tonight's argument, which have been conducted throughout Europe over the past 50 years. The Swedish Parliament in 1905–6 had the same rather tedious debates as the people of Norway sought to achieve their freedom in economic matters. The debate was dragged out in imperalist language, with deputies talking about the wider Swedish entity and using the debate to deny the people of Norway the opportunity of freedom.
When we talk about nationalism we should recall that in Czechoslovakia a comparative point in the development of their party, Masaryk and Benes had about half the potential vote which the SNP now has in Scotland. In Norway there was exactly the same situation. Again, Paderewski, in Poland, led a small but clear-sighted group of people determined to have freedom.
I freely admit to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that we are at present a minority in Scotland, but we are a growing minority party. We are seen to be spreading beyond the 30 per cent. which the hon. Member attributed to us. The Glasgow Herald showed that we have 33 per cent., and our own research shows that our vote is going up.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since the hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Glasgow Herald today, does he accept the figures from yesterday's Glasgow Herald?

Mr. Reid: I concede that the political situation in Scotland is volatile. I have admitted that all along. The three political parties in Scotland each have about one-third support. But the hon. Gentleman forgets that these percentages do not take account of the "don't know'' figures. If he really wants to talk statistics he will find that in the last two elections the SNP has gained about 60 per cent. of the 20 per cent. in the "don't know" category.
As I said in the last debate on proportional representation, my party has been absolutely honest about where it is going,


and why. We have said that we shall stick with proportional representation, even though it may be to our disadvantage. I remind right hon. and hon. Members of my final words in that debate, which were that if the Committee did not accept proportional representation and the SNP won, as Rene Levesque of the Parti Québecois did in Canada, so be it. I approach this debate in similar fashion. The time has come for the Government to think of a timetable motion.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that on 27th June 1976 the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) was reported in the Sunday Times as being against the guillotine?

Mr. Reid: I said then that we must allow—against pressure for a timetable even before the Bill reached the House—two or three weeks before there was any question of the guillotine's being applied. I am saying tonight, as the most doveish of the doves in the SNP, that the time has come to stop this nonsense.
I refer the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to his hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), that good social democrat, who has written about whey-faced Members straggling through the Lobbies night after night not knowing what they were voting for, and begging the Government to let them get to bed. That is the stage which the Bill has reached. The hon. Gentleman is determined to prolong that agony as long as possible. I say that the time has now come to call a halt.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman referred to in connection with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has now departed to the Common Market, where mistakes have been made in the past.
This is an amendment about the timing of elections. Apart from his observations that the debate has gone on beyond that somewhat interesting nature, at least the hon. Gentleman has admitted that the position in Scotland is volatile. It is certainly interesting for the House to have so many figures bandied about from opinion polls taken at different times, which suit particular arguments of

particular Members on whatever stand they want to make.
The hard fact is that the position is volatile. Therefore, the amendment makes much good sense. At least the Committee finds itself confessing that we need time. Time is of the essence, because the longer we have to deploy the arguments and bring to the attention of the people of Scotland and Wales all the problems involved, the better. I believe that the Committee will want the will of the people to be able to crystallise on the basis of more facts. At this stage the facts are few.
The lack of facts prompts me to pose the following question: is the Committee fully informed about what is going on behind the scenes, about what appear to be inspired leaks and—I go no further, for I hate to be too critical—wheeling and dealing, understandings that people such as myself who are opposed to the Bill have a right to know about? I should like to think that the Government would wish with wheeling and dealing and inspired leaks, not to harden my position but to seek to convert me to the beliefs to which some of them have recently come in support of devolution.

Dr. Phipps: My hon. Friend has touched on a most important point, which is concerning many hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee. Does he agree that if the Government are seeking parties to whom to make concessions they might try this side of the Chamber before trying the other side?

Mr. Leadbitter: I was doing a little fishing. I hope that even at this stage we may have some response, because there is a good deal of sense in what my hon. Friend says.
The Government must bear in mind that at this stage we are merely responding to what we hear and read. As the support of this side of the Chamber is vital, I should have thought that it would be looked at with care and that an effort would be made to remove our worries. Frankness should be allowed to prevail.
When we come to the question of the timing of the Assembly elections, the Government might at least give us some indication of when they think the elections should be held. The Bill says that


the date is to be left to the Secretary of State. It is not for me to say that I do not trust Secretaries of State, but I observe that they have a long record of being devious. I do not say that that is dishonourable. It may be due to expediency. But I am expected to vote, and if I could be whispered to in the same way as I understand other people have been whispered to, perhaps I could tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State "Yes. You have picked the right time, bearing in mind the state of the economy, the likelihood of an early General Election, the indecision of the people of Scotland, the shifting sands, where not so long ago we thought that there was a great army in support of devolution and now in the countries involved it does not seem to exist." But we have no information from my right hon. Friend about dates.
All that we have before us is the question whether we should have the elections after the next General Election. Note, Mr. Murton, that a General Election means an election in Scotland, England and Wales.

Mr. McCusker: And Northern Ireland.

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes—good old Northern Ireland! That is a more important matter than I am allowed to discuss now.
The result of a General Election has the added credence of the involvement of the English constituencies. I find contradictory the fact that the timing of the Assembly elections depends on a likely referendum, from which English involvement is excluded.
In the Northern Region we have about 3·3 million people. In Wales there are 2·2 million. The problems in the Northern Region are just as difficult to deal with as those in Wales. I have had the advantage of living in both parts of the United Kingdom. I could make a plea for some devolution for the Northern Region. Such a plea, with all its logic, could be argued for Merseyside and other parts of the United Kingdom. But if such pleas were successfully made the parliamentary system as I understand it would be fragmented to the point of becoming impotent.

Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend is on the subject of the guillotine, may I ask whether he noticed in The Sunday Times of 27th June last year the following report, on page 2:
George Reid, the Scottish Nationalist MP, speaking at Tullibody after a Scottish National Party march to Bannockburn, said Britain was blundering into constitutional chaos. The assembly Bill was dead as a dodo. With so many Labour MPs opposed to the guillotine, there was no chance of it going through. Yet the SNP was itself against the guillotine, he said.
Is it not an interesting question why the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind?

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend has been ingenious in raising the matter now. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) is so contradictory. He might have made that comment after coming from the kirk.

Mr. Reid: The Bannockburn march last year is a long time back, just as Bannockburn is in history The hon. Member for West Lothian has not been fair with the Committee. A big debate was being conducted in the Scots Press at that time, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) in particular being involved. The hon. Gentleman, who is not present, was demanding guarantees from the Government about the guillotine. Nobody in the SNP would have wanted to inflict a timetable debate on our English and Welsh friends until we had had two or three weeks to see how the Bill was going. Tonight I said quite reasonably, as a dove, that the time had come to call a halt. That is a reasonable conclusion—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because there has been so much time-wasting nonsense in the Committee tonight, after 10 years' debate.

Mr. John Mendelson: What is it to do with the hon. Gentleman how long we debate the Bill? It is none of the hon. Gentleman's business.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire has been caught in the net, and we should allow him to continue his struggle in silence.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) should just sit and listen and like it.

Mr. Leadbitter: The more time we have to develop our arguments, the more likely it is that there will be a clearer understanding of the issues in the country as a whole.
7.0 p.m.
I make a plea to the Committee that it would be wrong to confuse the issues involved. Constitutional changes are not involved with unemployment and investment programmes. We must be clear about what is involved, because the consequences of constitutional change could be fragmentation and disunity within the United Kingdom. This change, together with the situation in the Common Market, could bring about impotence for this Parliament. That is why I think it is right to consider the amendment seriously. More time is needed.
Anybody who suggests that the amendment should not be supported because a resulting General Election would be fought on the issue of devolution alone would be seeking to be too clever by half, and would be getting away from the essential point. It is clear from the debates so far that more time is needed. As to a guillotine, I submit that we have not yet spent anywhere near enough time on such a grave and complex matter. I beg the Government to take care not to bring in a guillotine too early during these important discussions.
I hope that, apart from their increasing rumours about the reduction of their numbers in the House, Scottish and Welsh Members will also bear in mind that the Bill is important to the people of not only Wales and Scotland but to the people of England. The House is still reacting to party considerations. That is not conducive to good judgment. We ought to react to what the people want. I hope that the House will take note of that point.
The House still has the power to kill the Bill. We cannot go through 1977 praying that a General Election will kill the Bill. That would be wishful thinking. There are enough hon. Members here to kill it. I oppose the Bill and its principles. It was born out of deadlock. It is a bastard child, it is full of nonsense, and I oppose it because that is one way of gaining time.

Mr. James Dempsey: I have listened to most of the

speeches on the amendment and it appears that we are not dealing with the amendment at all. Every opportunity is being taken to undermine the Bill.
If anyone has any doubt about where I stand, let me make it clear that I stand with the Scottish Labour Party on the subject of devolution. After all, the Scottish Labour Party has decided in favour of devolution many times and so did the United Kingdom Labour Party Conference. If democracy means anything at all, we must be under an obligation to accept the democratic will and wish of the Labour and trade union movements in Scotland. That policy was confirmed at the national Labour Party conference.
Periodically, I am asked by my colleagues to sign resolutions and I am usually reminded by them that the policies involved were favoured by the Labour Party Conference. They include such items as defence reductions, opposition to expenditure cuts and opposition to economic policies. But the same conference decided in favour of devolution. Therefore, I am surprised and I cannot understand why some of my colleagues support certain of the policies that were determined by the British Labour Party at its annual conference, and yet oppose the policy on devolution. The Cabinet is also in two hearts. We should be of one heart and we should support the policy that has been democratically decided. My colleagues who oppose the Bill attended that conference and had the opportunity to express their views against devolution, as they were entitled to do.
I congratulate the Government team. They have done a tremendous research job into a difficult and complex problem and they have prepared a Bill that outlines the devolved responsibilities of Scotland and Wales. Those who claim that the Bill is a shambles are being extremely unfair to Ministers.
The amendment calls for a General Election before proposals for devolved responsibility can be introduced. That is a new practice in parliamentary affairs. I have been in Parliament for a number of years and I have seen former parts of the Empire receive not just devolved governmental responsibility but full independence. It was not suggested that there should be a parliamentary election before that was allowed. Since the Irish problem arose there have been alterations


in the Government's responsibility for that part of the United Kingdom. There has been direct rule and devolved rule, and we have discussed administrative, executive and governmental proposals. I say to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that if there were a General Election every time new devolved responsibilities for Northern Ireland were proposed, General Elections would be held two or three times a year.
The amendment is another red herring drawn across the trail. We are not discussing setting up a sovereign parliament for Scotland, or independence. The Labour Party in Scotland is against that. We are discussing the delegation of certain duties. I represent two towns—Coatbridge and Airdrie—and we are talking about control over the rates and water services in those towns. Surely the Scots people are entitled to determine domestic matters of that nature, within the financial allocations allowed by the Government. There is nothing revolutionary about that.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has an excellent record in local government as a distinguished local councillor for many years. Is he seriously suggesting that the type of housing in Coatbridge or in Airdrie should be decided by the Scottish Assembly rather than by the local authority? That would be strange coming from someone who has such an excellent record in local government.

Mr. Dempsey: My hon. Friend knows that I am not making any such assertion. The legislation which the local authorities implement should be determined by the Scots people themselves, whether it be housing developments or estates, schools, the form of education, and so on. Parliament lays down the legislation and the local authorities implement it. All I am suggesting is that the Scottish Assembly should lay down the legislation and that the local autorities should implement it. It is as simple as that.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest regard—he is a friendly person and I should not like to say anything to offend him—should quibble about the £2 million which it will cost to establish the Assembly and to pay the salaries of Members and officials. My hon. Friend belongs to the most extravagant

Assembly of which I know—the European Parliament. That costs an awful lot more than £2 million and takes powers away from people in this country and gives them to faceless bureaucrats in Europe.
I refer my hon. Friend to a former distinguished Member of the House of Commons who is now a Member of the other place. Recently, in the debate to which the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) referred, he said that in the mid-1920s the main point in his election programme was not devolution for Scotland, but Home Rule for Scotland. That is the heritage that my hon. Friend has in West Lothian. In those days that was understandable, because we did not have the economic opportunities that we now have. That is why we should oppose independence, but go all out for devolution. That is what this debate is about.
We should bear in mind that there is no question of taking authority from the hands of the English. It surprises me that it should be suggested that persons living in the English part of the United Kingdom should dictate or instruct the Scots on the type of administration, not government, that they should have. That is what we are debating.
One Opposition Member asked "How can we unscramble the Scots in England from the English population so that they can take part in a referendum?" I suggest that, as long as they are living in areas that come under the jurisdiction of English local authorities and are subject to their Government, they have nothing to do with the development of the decision-making process in Scotland. It is as simple as that.
I think that very soon there is likely to be a move by the Maltese people for a referendum to decide whether they should separate from the United Kingdom. Am I to take it that English Members and English people as a whole will vote in that referendum to decide whether the Maltese people should have their independence? Is that the argument that is being canvassed tonight? I suggest that people should have the right to determine their own administrative establishment in their own part of the United Kingdom. There is no conflict with the economic and political organisation of


the United Kingdom or with the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is not involved, and does not arise.
I hope that we shall not decide this issue by straying into wide-open spaces. We have discussed the referendum and the questions which should be in the referendum paper. We have also discussed whether there should be one, two or three elections in the one month. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that there is no reason why we should not have two elections on the one day. As a councillor I always had two elections on the one day. We always had county and district council elections on the same day. We were politically mature and had such grand political IQs that we had no trouble persuading electors to return Labour councillors for the county and district council areas.
7.15 p.m.
Contrary to what some Scottish National Party Members may say, we are a long way from the next General Election. Indeed, the climate will be very different from what it is now. I have not the slightest doubt that, having succeeded in the past, we shall succeed in future. For the eight constituencies in Lanark-shire eight Labour Members were elected. The Conservative Party has only two seats in the whole of Glasgow.
The Labour Party has a solid tradition. We believe in the Socialist concept of human society. We shall apply that concept by realising the ideals of the Labour movement. One of the earliest ideals was and always will be the right of the Scots people to determine their own form of administration without in any way encroaching on the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.
If the amendment is passed, it will mean that before we introduce anything of a major kind in a new Parliament there will have to be an election to see whether the people want it or not.
I listened with great care to the Opposition point of view. One hon. Member said that the British people have not been given the details of the proposed devolution and, therefore, there must be an election to present those details to them.

The Conservative Party, in its election manifesto, promised to introduce devolution. No one suggested that it should outline the type of devolved government that a Conservative Government would introduce. Frankly, no one in his senses would ask any political party to include in its election manifesto such a devised and devolved structure.
I speak now not only for myself but for every Labour candidate in Scotland who, in his or her election address, included the pledge of the Scottish and British Labour movement that, if elected, the Labour Government would introduce a Scottish Assembly to ensure that the Scots people had a greater say in their own, not the United Kingdom's, affairs. I stand by that pledge. That is why I shall oppose the amendment.

Mr. John Mendelson: I rise to comment on what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), not to put any difficult technical questions to him. I have far too much respect for him and his record to do that. I wish to take up his invitation to address ourselves to the terms of the amendment.
That is all the more necessary because of the arrogant request which has been made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that the debate should be curtailed. The hon. Gentleman took it upon himself to demand the introduction of a timetable motion, as if he were the Leader of the House of Commons and responsible for introducing such motions. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Having made that arrogant demand, the hon. Gentleman quickly departed from the scene.
It is important to put on record that these debates are strictly to the point and are relevant to the purpose of the amendment. I am particularly interested in the amendment, because it would enable all parts and sections of the country—I commend this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, who invited us to speak strictly to the terms of the amendment—to have a really searching debate on the proposals in the Bill. I contend that such a debate has never taken place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie may say as often as he likes that there has been a Labour


Party Conference decision in favour of this policy and principle, but, even if there had been a proper debate at the Labour Party Conference, it is a well-known and accepted constitutional doctrine that parties are only instruments of Government and not the Government itself. What matters is that there should be a full and searching debate before the electorate in a General Election campaign. Such a debate, on a United Kingdom basis, has never taken place.
The merit of this amendment is that it would enable the electorate of the United Kingdom to hold such a searching debate. That is my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, and that is my justification for taking a different point of view. My hon. Friend is a reasonable man, and I am sure that that is a reason which would commend itself to him. He may not agree with it but he would accept that it is an argument which can be advanced in answer to what he said about party conferences.
I also take issue with what my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said about the Labour Party Conference. A short debate at the conference which was not preceded by properly detailed debates in all affiliated organisations is valueless, and no claim can be made for it. Some of those who are now making claims in support of the decision of the Labour Party Conference are on record in years gone by as having publicly criticised similar decisions of Labour Party Conferences, reached by block votes, because they have not been preceded by proper debates in the affiliated organisations. I have shared public platforms with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends when these criticisms have been made and I can recall some historic meetings.

Mr. Dempsey: I simply made the point that the Scottish Conference of the Labour, trade union and co-operative movement was a special conference held for a full day to give the constituent bodies an opportunity to express their opinion.

Mr. Mendelson: I know exactly what my hon. Friend had in mind when he made that point, but I am dealing with the Labour Party's national conference, which was held on a Great Britain basis.

Mr. Dalyell: May I say something about the history behind the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)? There was a very hurried meeting of AUEW delegates before the 17th August conference, with Mr. Gavin Laird returning from his well-earned holiday in a hurry. It was done in a very short time. Some people were absent, and the result is that two and half years later we have Mr. John Boyd making a speech which should be read by hon. Members participating in this debate because it is a very telling speech indeed.

Mr. Mendelson: I have given way willingly to my hon. Friends because these detailed and searching inquiries among hon. Members will be of interest to people in Scotland, particularly to members of the Scottish Labour movement. I was discussing the more general point about the national conference of the Labour Party on a United Kingdom basis. The main reason for today's debate and for the support being given to this amendment is that the amendment would allow the electorate not merely the party conferences or party organisations, to hold a searching debate. That is the peculiar merit of this proposal.
I should also like to comment on the arrogant demand made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Clack-mannan and East Stirlingshire who said that the time had come to call a halt. That is a rather peculiar thing to ask for in a parliamentary debate. To what does he want to call a halt? This is a debate on major constitutional proposals. The debate is still in its opening stages and is proceeding seriously, on relevant topics, under the supervision of the most experienced Chairmen that the House of Commons can provide. The debate is of very great importance.
If the debate has occasionally become somewhat general in character, that has been due entirely to the way in which the Government have chosen to draft this legislation. If we take Clause 1, for instance, which is the declaratory clause, how is the Committee to debate such a clause without reference from time to time to general principle and general ideas? It would be impossible. If we search the history of the House, who would have accused previous generations of Members of being at fault because


they had a more general debate when the future of the United Kingdom was the subject under debate? The charge is ridiculous.
I particularly want to put on record once again—and we shall have to do this at every stage—that such false charges should not be made. The charge began to emerge in the arrogant demands of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire that we should call a halt to the debate and in his peremptory request that the Government should introduce a guillotine motion forthwith. This debate is strictly relevant and to the point.

Dr. Phipps: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be totally improper for the Government to bring in any kind of guillotine motion or to call a halt to the debate when the House has not even seen the Government's proposals for a referendum?

Mr. Mendelson: I have no reason to quarrel with the Government over their conduct. I am addressing myself to the wholly unjustified demand of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire. The Government have made no proposals for timetables or speeding up the debate. They are not responsible for the gossip that appears in Sunday newspapers. The Government is full of right hon. and hon. Members with whom I have worked for a lifetime, and I have no reason to think that they are in any way responsible for any of the rumours that are current in Fleet Street. I refuse to discuss them.
A further merit of this amendment is that a General Election campaign would enable Government Ministers to be subjected to searching inquiries by the electorate in Scotland and Wales. Ministers would be called upon to give answers to all the questions that have arisen in the debate. We sometimes assume too easily in the Committee or in the House as a whole that because all our detailed debates are followed with fascination in our parliamentary circle, this interest is echoed throughout the country. It is not. In a General Election campaign the whole story would come out. I would welcome it very much if the Prime Minister would abandon the reserve which he

has shown so far in this debate and explain his policies to the country night after night—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), in his brilliant election campaign in February 1974, explained the policies of his party and of his future Administration. With the help of his associates he could turn the political situation of the country within ten days and give a brilliant account of what is in his mind. I should like the Prime Minister to emerge from his reserve on the Scotland and Wales Bill and explain to the country, not least to Scotland and Wales, what is on his mind on all the problems that we have discussed in the House. That is a further merit of the amendment and another reason why I support it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am sorry to disrupt the hon. Member's argument but he said, in relation to the guillotine, that he had voted with his right hon. Friends for generations. If the Government were to bring in a guillotine motion next week or the week after, in which Lobby would the hon. Member vote? Would he vote with his right hon. Friends or with others who opposed the Bill?

Mr. Mendelson: Did the hon. Member say that I had been working with my right hon. Friends for generations or for many years?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I think that I said that it was a question of generations. In so doing I was paying obeisance to the many years that the hon. Member has been in this House.

Mr. Mendelson: I am glad of that because we do not want to add to the burdens of Ministers by making them appear older than they are.
My position is clear. The debate has only just started. Many principles of the greatest importance are involved in the legislation. The British people have a right and hon. Members have a duty to discuss these matters in considerable detail. No one can say at this stage how long this searching discussion will take. It would be monstrous even to suggest the introduction of a timetable motion next week or for many weeks to come. I should vote to oppose any such motion. But I have no reason to think that such


a motion is in the minds of my right hon. Friends. I do not take the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) as my source of rumours about the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I know better than he does.
The last and perhaps not the least merit of the amendment is that a number of people are proposing to support the legislation in order to inflict a defeat upon the separatists. When I was last in Canada people had been toying with the argument that general economic malaise made people dissatisfied and drove them to temporary solutions that they otherwise would not consider. If the amendment were carried everybody would be forced to face the real problems of politics.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) said in a remarkable speech recently, the immature discussions on whether there should be Assemblies, fewer or more Assemblies, would be replaced by the real stuff of mature politics involving how our educational and social life is to be organised among all sections on a general basis. In such a campaign each party would have to answer those questions and this problem would take its sectional place. Such a campaign would put the matter in perspective. These issues are strictly relevant to the amendment, and I give it my full support.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) introduced her amendment in the guise of a second referendum. I think that she will agree that the interpretation to be put on her amendment is that this would lead to a United Kingdom-wide referendum.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whilst rejecting the bulk of the right hon. Lady's argument, seemed to accept that there was some substance in what she said about the need for the United Kingdom to have a say in a General Election on whether the legislation should be implemented. That is a strange argument to come from the right hon. Member for Down, South, of all people. It is suggested that the House of Commons should delay implementation of the Bill, presumably having approved the Bill and therefore given it its consent, after the Government have

made a commitment to have a referendum, and the people of Scotland having agreed with the legislation. In other words, after Parliament has given the Bill its full-hearted consent it is suggested that the Government should say that they will not introduce the legislation until after the next election.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Ewing: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) because he has not been in the Chamber for long. The debate has been long and I am anxious to reply as briefly as possible.
The right hon. Lady for Renfrewshire, East may shake her head, but it is suggested in the amendment that the legislation should be held in abeyance until after the next General Election. That poses one or two questions. The main question is, when will the next election be? Possibly it will not be until October 1979. It is suggested that if the legislation is approved by Parliament and by the people we should delay elections to the assemblies until early 1980. The right hon. Lady must know that that is neither a good democratic argument nor an argument that will be acceptable to the people of Scotland and, I suspect, to the people of Wales.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I hope that the Minister will address himself to the points of principle and not confine his remarks to the narrow issue of when a General Election will be held. With respect, that has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Ewing: I have not lost the ability to read. The amendment is specific. It proposes that the legislation should not be implemented until after the next General Election. In that sense the amendment has everything to do with the next General Election. The right hon. Lady knows that.
The second question that must be posed if such a move were accepted is how would the parties line up in the next election. For instance, how would the Conservative Party in Scotland conduct the election campaign? Would its official spokesman be the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) or the hon.


Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)?
It is politically impossible to hold a General Election on one specific issue. If there are any recent examples, surely the most striking is the attempt by the Conservative Government in February 1974 to have a General Election on who rules the country. The issue then was whether the miners' union or the Conservative Government ruled the country. In my constituency, and in West Lothian, the miners issue was dead after the second day of the election campaign. It is not possible to sustain a three-week General Election campaign on one single issue. Hon. Members know that.
The purpose of the amendment is to delay the implementation of this legislation not in the hope that it can be delayed but in the hope that it can be prevented altogether. That is not acceptable to the Government.
For those reasons, we ask that the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Raison: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's words. Does he accept, therefore, that he completely rules out the mandate argument, wholly and utterly, because he has said that one cannot pick out one issue in a whole multitude in an election campaign? A mandate obviously implies that there is one particular commitment made by a party. May we take it that he has rejected the whole idea of a mandate?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not the position. If he had listened to what I have been saying, he could not possibly have come to that conclusion.
Several hon. Members have raised the question of the opinion poll published yesterday in the Glasgow Herald. It is important to put on record the contradictions contained in that poll. I do not attribute blame for that to the Glasgow Herald. However, in that poll 38 per cent. were in favour of the proposals contained in the Bill, and 32 per cent. said that they were not in favour of any form of devolution whatsoever. It just so happens that both of those figures are the highest percentages that we have had in favour of the specific proposals or against devolution. Of course, the 18

per cent. in favour of separation equally happens to be the lowest percentage in favour of separation that has appeared in opinion polls for some considerable time. While the poll is interesting and valuable for the analyst, it contains some contradictions, although, as I say, I do not attribute any blame to the Glasgow Herald.
I turn to the points made so often by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I say to him in the kindest possible way that it really is becoming increasingly difficult to accept that my hon. Friend is the same person who sat side-by-side with me at the table in Keir Hardie House four or five days after the last General Election and pleaded that the Government be instructed to get the Assembly set up as quickly as possible. I find it difficult to understand and accept that my hon. Friend is the same person who, for the first time in a General Election campaign, invited into his constituency speakers who were particularly well known for their prodevolution views. I can only assume that he meant that the interpretation to be put on that was that he was most anxious to become identified with those of us who had pro-devolution views.
I make this final point about the contributions and interruptions that are continually made by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members. There seems to be a view prevailing in the House of Commons that all that we have to do is push the people of Scotland into a corner and say to them "On the one hand, you can have separation; or, on the other hand, you can have unity", and in that situation that we can expect electorates to react rationally.
I must warn the House that that will not happen. If we push the electorates of Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom into a corner on any issue, devolution or anything else, they will not act rationally. They will act very irrationally, and we shall possibly get exactly the opposite result of that which we are all anxious to achieve—namely, the preservation of the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend also recall that at the August conference there was no mention of any legislative Assembly? Let us be candid about this.


On 17th September there was a White Paper that mentioned a legislative assembly for the first time. It just shows how things are pushed along. On 18th September my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) announced a General Election. How many of us go through, with a fine-toothed comb, a White Paper during a General Election. We shall return to this point time and again. There are various skeletons in the cupboard. I refer again to my Second Reading speech, which was pretty candid about this matter.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ewing: The point I must make in reply to that is that the recent developments in my hon. Friend's thinking have led everyone in the House of Commons, and certainly everyone in Scotland, to believe that he is against the very principle of devolution. Not only is my hon. Friend against an elected legislative Assembly; he is against the very principle of devolution. It is to that extent that his position on devolution has radically altered. I must say to him in all sincerity that it gets a bit much for those of us who have campaigned for this, and have been joined by him in our campaigns generally through the years, to have to stand the constant barracking that we get from him on the question of devolution.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Ewing: I say that to my hon. Friend in the kindest possible way.

Mr. Kinnock: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is against the presentation of the polar extremes of unity or separation, may I take it that he will be in favour of at least a two-question referendum or possibly a three-question referendum, when we eventually get it?

Mr. Ewing: The debate is not about the referendum or what is to be contained on the ballot paper. I am sure, Mr. Murton, that you would quickly rule me out of order if I strayed into the realms of the referendum.

Mr. Dalyell: If it is said of me that it is a recent conversion, let me say that the conversion was in January 1975, when I really tumbled to what was up, because I and others had not realised until that time that what was involved was a Scot

tish Prime Minister, a Scottish Cabinet and all the rest of it, and those who were pro-devolution and the maximalists were very astute in the way in which they edged things along a great deal further than many of us at the August conference realised, although perhaps we ought to have realised it.

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend will know that I do not believe that he has such a simple mind that he would be taken in by me or others on this matter. I do not accept that.
The amendment, as I have said, really seeks to delay and probably to frustrate altogether the implementation of the Bill once it has passed through Parliament and the people of Scotland and Wales have had their say in the form of a referendum. The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East laughs and shakes her head. She seems to treat this matter in a frivolous manner. [Interruption.] It is not at all a frivolous matter. It is a serious constitutional issue. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would accept that it is much more serious than seems to be accepted—

Mr. Cormack: You are a frivolous twit.

Mr. John Smith: I pse dixit.

Mr. Ewing: I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I must hand credit to him. He took the trouble to come to the Labour Party Conference in Troon last year. I am sure that he would agree that he sensed the feeling among Labour Party people at that conference. I got the impression that when he came to leave that conference he was seized of the desire on the part of the Labour Party in Scotland to see this legislation progress. I give this much to him: he took the trouble to come to the conference, to listen to the debate and to sense for himself the feeling that prevailed.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend must be aware that at a fringe meeting, which incidentally was packed to the doors, at that Troon Conference, I said that, although the delegates—I had listened to the debate and talked to them privately—were voting for devolution, apart from a handful, none of them actually believed in it. I was cheered by the delegates when I made that statement to them.

Mr. Ewing: That is a personal interpretation of the motives of people in voting for or against something. Certainly my experience as a Scottish Member of Parliament deeply involved in the devolution campaign over the years is that a growing awareness has developed in the Labour Party, culminating last year at Troon in an almost unanimous approach from the floor of the conference, joined by the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, in a desire to see the Bill on the statute book.

Mr. Kinnock: Many of us have taken the trouble, as my hon. Friend puts it— in fact it was no trouble at all—to consult comrades in the Labour Movement both inside and outside Scotland, about the general aspiration for, and view of, devolution. It appears to me that there is an enormous amount of support for devolution in Scotland, but what we have to investigate is what people expect to get from it. On a fairly thorough examination, I believe that people are expecting things from the proposals of my hon. Friend which wildly exceed even the expectations of my hon. Friend, who is an enthusiastic devolutionist. How does he propose to translate the reality of this Bill into the aspirations of the Scottish people and the Scottish Labour Movement when they think that the Bill means jobs, houses and all kinds of good things that he does not even propose to give them?

Mr. Ewing: In fairness, no one in the Labour Party in Scotland—certainly no member of the Executive of the Scottish Council and no Minister or Labour Member of Parliament in Scotland—has given the impression that the Bill is the panacea for all Scotland's ills. We have presented the Bill factually during a campaign which began in January 1976. If people expect more from the Bill than what is contained in it, that is not the fault of the Labour Party in Scotland. At all our public meetings, we continually make it clear to the people of Scotland what the Bill contains, what it will do and what it will not do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) spelled out in an excellent speech the difficulties of conducting the election on one issue.

Many issues were raised in this debate, which, with respect to the Committee, had no bearing on the amendment. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept that the reasons that I am asking it to reject the amendment are those that I have already mentioned—the fact that we have already agreed to have a referendum, the uncertainty about the date of the next election, which is not likely to able delay which such a proposition would entail.
Amendment No. 93 in the name of the leader of the Liberal Party seeks to write in a specific date for holding the election. I am sure that on consideration the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Secretary of State should have some flexibility in deciding the date of the first election against the background of the date of the referendum. However, the Government intend and desire to hold the elections for the Assembly as soon as possible after the referendum has been concluded and the issue resolved. I hope that on that basis the right hon. Gentleman will accept that my right hon. Friend should have this flexible power, instead of writing into the Bill a date which could not be changed without further legislation.
Against that background, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I must raise a voice in protest at the Minister's reply. After a number of detailed and interesting speeches, he simply made a propaganda speech, unjustifiably attacking some of his hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make progress, as he obviously does, this is not the way to go about it.
We are unhappy about what the Minister has been saying in the House and outside. I was interested in two things that he is quoted as saying in the Press this morning. First of all, talking about progress on the Bill, he is quoted in the Express as saying:
So far, we have reached Clause 6.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Gentleman continually complains about the Press getting his remarks wrong. As someone who writes articles himself, he knows that those who write in the Press are never inclined to spoil a good story by getting it accurate.

Mr. Taylor: Obviously, then, that quotation was wrong. But the second quotation is even more significant. Apparently the hon. Gentleman said:
By this time, we should have reached Clause 115.
I wonder whether that also is a misquotation. It certainly surprised me.
The Minister has consistently said that the people of Scotland are solidly behind this measure, which some of us had doubted. When a poll is published, his reaction is quoted as being:

"I do not really care about opinion polls which try to make out that we do not want the Bill. Scotland wants devolution."

This is not the way to persuade people. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make progress, he should deal with the serious arguments put forward on both sides of the Committee. He should be less insulting to my hon. Friends and to his hon. Friends, so that we can make progress.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 264.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[7.57 p.m.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Awdry, Daniel
Heffer, Eric S.
Onslow, Cranley


Banks, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Paisley, Rev Ian


Blaker, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Parkinson, Cecil

Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Braine, Sir Bernard
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Raison, Timothy


Brotherton, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Budgen, Nick
Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Burden, F. A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes James, R.


Carlisle, Mark
Le Matchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carson, John
Lloyd, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Channon, Paul
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Luce, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conmay)


Cormack, Patrick
McCusker, H.
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Dalyell, Tam
MacGregor, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shepherd, Colin


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shersby, Michael


Drayson, Burnaby
Marten, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Dunlop, John
Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Durant, Tony
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, Sir William
Mawby, Ray
Spearing, Nigel


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslsop, Robin
Spence, John


Eyre, Reginald
Mayhew, Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
Mendelson, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Wakeham, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
More, John (Croydon C)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Warren, Kenneth


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral



Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Iain Sproat and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Mr. Ian Grist.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mudd, David



Havers, Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Andrew (Slockport N)
Campbell, Ian


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Boardman, H.
Carter, Ray


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cartwright, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Clemitson, Ivor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Coleman, Donald


Bates, Alf
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Bean, R. E.
Buchanan, Richard
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)




Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roper, John


Crawford, Douglas
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Kelley, Richard
Sandelson, Neville


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Duffy. A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Snape, Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Eadie, Alex
MacCormick, lain
Steel, Rt Hon David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


Ennals, David
MacKenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thompson, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tinn, James


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomlinson, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tomney, Frank


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Golding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ward, Michael


Grant, John (Islington C)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkins, David


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Newens, Stanley
Watkinson, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Pollok)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ovenden, John
Whitlock, William


Henderson, Douglas
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Hooley, Frank
Padley, Walter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Horam, John
Park, George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parker, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Huckfield, Les
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woof, Robert


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Reid, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Ted Graham and


John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Frank R. White.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rooker, J. W.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: Before calling the mover of the next amendment, I wish to refer to the question raised earlier by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The hon. Gentleman asked that further consideration be given to Amendment (a) to New Clause 36, which had not been selected. This I have now considered.
In my view, the scope of the Bill extends to cover the various means by which the government of Scotland and Wales can be altered and improved. The Bill already contains provisions relating to bodies elsewhere in the United Kingdom which are consequential upon some of the alterations proposed. There is no reason why other such provisions should not be introduced by way of amendment. Such an amendment, in my view, is New Clause 36. The number of representatives of Scotland and Wales in the Parliament of the United Kingdom is clearly a matter which affects the government of those territories and is therefore within the scope of this Bill.
The proposed amendment to New Clause 36, however, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, goes wider than this, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has quite fairly pointed out. Were it agreed to, it would have the effect of sanctioning changes in the representation in this House of other parts of the country, and I could not regard this as within the scope of the Bill.
Therefore, I cannot specifically put the right hon. Gentleman's amendment before the Committee. Nevertheless it occurs to me that what the hon. Member has said might well form part of an argument against the new clause as it stands, and I shall listen to him with attention, if he catches my eye.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I thank you for giving such care to your ruling. We shall want to study it, because it will guide our considerations later in debate.

Mr. Dalyell: On a different point of order, Mr. Murton. Will you, tomorrow, refer to Hansard to the exchanges between my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern)

was in the Chair, as to what is or is not in order? Will you examine those exchanges and make a statement at the beginning of tomorrow's business?

The Chairman: It is entirely up to the occupant of the Chair at the time as to how he conducts the debate in Committee.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about consulting references in Hansard on this matter. The point in the earlier exchange related to references to a referendum during discussions on amendments on the Bill. The fact that an amendment facilitating a referendum has not yet been tabled makes it difficult to stay in order on certain amendments, because there is a need to refer to some extent to a referendum because of certain considerations introduced into the Bill.

The Chairman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I fully appreciate the difficulties of the situation. It is very complex.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I beg to move Amendment No. 457, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert:
'Commissioner appointed by the Queen in Council'.

The Chairman: With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:

No. 576, in page 2, line 13, leave out
'order of the Secretary of State'
and insert:
'Her Majesty by Order in Council'.

No. 577, in page 2, line 17, leave out
'The Secretary of State may, by order'
and insert:
'Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.

No. 458, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Commissioner'.

No. 578, in Clause 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out
'The Secretary of State may by order'
and insert:
'Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.

No. 560, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert:
'Commissioner appointed by the Queen in Council'.

No. 582, in Clause 6, in page 4, line 4, leave out
'The Secretary of State may by order'
and insert:
'Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.

No. 561, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert:
'Commissioner appointed by the Queen in Council'.

We may also consider New Clause 10—Commissioner appointed by the Queen in Council.

Mr. Mackintosh: The point of these amendments and the new clause relates to the office of the Secretary of State and the relationship between him and the Assembly.
The Committee will recall that when the White Paper appeared, the Secretary of State was described in the Scottish Press and by many people as having a Governor-General type rôle in Scotland. It was pointed out that to give the Secretary of State such a rôle in supervising the day-to-day formal conduct of the Assembly was unusual, particularly bearing in mind that the Secretary of State would be a party politician in a Westminster Cabinet and would have powers to watch over an Assembly whose political complexion might be different. It was said that this would lead to conflict and was unusual in any scheme of federalism, or devolution, or indeed any local government scheme of any kind. In other words, it was said that a Minister with political powers was to be given a different type of supervision. Therefore, the Labour Party and others in Scotland interested in these matters examined the situation in detail.
We propose a series of changes to remove the Secretary of State from this rôle. This is the first of the amendments that seeks to implement that approach. I emphasise that this has nothing whatever to do with the powers in the Bill. It neither increases nor decreases the Assembly's powers. The amendment provides that the Secretary of State should not deploy certain specific functions of a largely honorific or ceremonial nature,

but that they should be deployed by some non-partisan figure selected by the Government as laid down in Clause 10.
I appeal to hon. Members not to support this amendment whether they be in favour or against the Bill. I believe that if we are to set up any kind of Assembly, there should be a clear distinction between simply formal functions and the political rôle of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, if this amendment were passed it would weaken the position of central Government vis-à-vis the Assembly and would mean that the unitary argument would disappear? What he is suggesting surely is one further step towards the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he always allows me to elucidate matters more clearly. The point I am canvassing does not deal with powers but seeks to transfer powers to a non-partisan figure. If I thought that the amendment would alter the position substantially, I would say so. I want to improve the position of the Assembly, but the amendment seeks to deal with the timing when the election would be held.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Mackintosh: I know that my hon. Friend likes to interrupt every speech in these debates, and I shall give way to him in a moment. I always enjoy his interventions.
The second point relates to the alteration of the date by a period of two months either way in case of conflict with a United Kingdom General Election. The third point provides for the conduct of elections in a formal sense as to announcements or arrangements. The fourth point provides for the day and time of the first meeting. The fifth point relates to the arrangements and Standing Orders of the Assembly before it has met and has been able to draw up those matters. Those are the formal points that arise in every other legislature and require a figurehead person to make the announcement. These matters are more suitable for a non-political personage than somebody who is a member of the United Kingdom Cabinet. No political issues can arise here.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend accept that, if this is a purely nonpolitical function, it can be written in as an instruction to the Secretary of State, whoever he may be? We are suspicious of the fact that the Secretary of State is to be eliminated and that some nonpolitical functionary is to be put in his place.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am surprised by that intervention. It would be impossible to write in these detailed powers, as they involve an element of discretion —not political discretion but mere convenience, mere arrangement. I repeat that the powers I am describing do not touch the serious political powers of the Secretary of State—the veto powers, the powers over the guidelines for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, powers of rent and rebate reservations, teachers' remuneration, payments into the Consolidated Fund, planning powers, and other substantial powers kept for the Secretary of State, and which I agree are unfortunate and could lead to a conflict that I do not want to see between the Assembly and a United Kingdom Government of a different political complexion. But that will be the subject of a later amendment.
The powers with which I am concerned now are what is known crudely in the textbooks as the Governor-General and/or wet nurse functions. They must go to some person, and it will be unfortunate if they go to a person who is equivalent to the Chief Executive and is his rival or opposite number in election campaigns in Scotland. One of the major objectives of seeing this proposal work—if it goes through, and I am not prejudging the issue—is to reduce unnecessary political or personal conflict of this kind to a minimum and to make formal as many provisions as is possible in this situation.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask simply for clarification. This non-partisan figure, this nonpolitical personage, this figure head, this wet nurse—who is she or he to be? Is it to be the Chairman of the Vice-Chancellor's Committee, the General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, or who? This is not a frivolous point. It is simply that such a person will have to make, whether he likes it or

not, decisions which by their nature are political.

Mr. Mackintosh: The decisions that I have gone through are not political. I have reserved those for other treatment. These decisions are formal. They are triggering decisions, such as announcing the day and the time at which the Assembly comes together. They are for purely formal things that are done in any Crown colony by a Governor-General with white plumes in his hat who is supposed to get on with it and not interfere with the affairs of the Parliament. The powers of dissolution, of prevention and overruling the Assembly, which are there in Clauses 20, 45, 46 and 47, are not touched by the amendment. It deals purely with formal powers.

Sir Raymond Gower: But one of these powers is the fixing of the date of the first election. We have been debating the importance of that all afternoon. It is the power described by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) as a vital power. It is a political decision by the Government as such, and is not a trival or formal matter.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. It is precisely the kind of power which should not be in the hands of a particular politician. It ought to be handled, in the interest of the working of the Bill and of the Assembly, by the sort of personage I suggest. I would not want a party politician in the Cabinet with the power to fix a date for elections. He could fix that date to suit his own Government and there would be four years of recrimination that the political complexion of the Assembly drew entirely from the date chosen. That is precisely the kind of thing that one wants taken out of the hands of a political personage.
I am addressing myself now to the objection put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I ask him to contemplate this case, although I know that he is opposed to the principle of the Bill. If the Bill is passed, it is in his interest, since he wants to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom, to reduce conflict to a minimum. I ask him, therefore, to contemplate the problems which would arise if


the Assembly had a non-Conservative majority—a likely situation, given Scottish politics—and all these detailed formal powers had to be exercised regularly and constantly by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).
Can anyone imagine anything that would drive a non-Conservative Scottish Assembly and its Chief Executive more quickly round the bend than having to deal regularly with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart? I am not making a personal point. The hon. Gentleman's political position is well known. He is a perfectly honourable Member. The hon. Gentleman has always detested an Assembly and has always said so. He has always opposed it. He has gone up and down Scotland saying that it is rubbish from beginning to end. Yet the hon. Gentleman would be the person to exercise the formal powers of announcing the date, the Standing Orders, when the Assembly would meet and so on. That would happen daily. But because the hon. Gentleman's powerful reputation is known everywhere I think he would be an unacceptable person to carry out these functions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make whatever vicious, unjustified personal attacks on me he wants but he is not entitled to say that I do not get on well with Socialists. Because he and I do not happen to see eye to eye does not mean that it is not perfectly possible for me to have the full respect of his colleagues.

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friends are oozing with respect for the hon. Gentleman. As I go up and down Scotland I hear nothing but very deep admiration for the hon. Gentleman from people in my party. The hon. Gentleman plugged his views with great vigour, as he is entitled to do, until he became Shadow Secretary of State. I am not making a personal attack on the hon. Gentleman. He has detested the idea of an Assembly. There has been no more passionate opponent of it. His record is known by everyone. For the hon. Gentleman to exercise the kind of informal powers normally exercised by a Governor-General—the pronouncement of the opening, choosing the date, the setting up

of Standing Orders, and so on—would to my mind be a mistake. It asks for conflict where this need not exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asks who the formal figure head will be. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that every year a figure head is chosen to preside over the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in precisely the way that I have suggested. That person is usually a well-known elderly figure in Scottish affairs—a figure of non-partisan views who is accepted as someone who can legitimately perform the kind of ceremonial function that is required.
If the Privy Council wishes to give this to a minor member of the Royal Family, then that is fine. If it wishes to award it to the kind of person running the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, that seems splendid. There is no attempt on my part to have a dignified Assembly by association with the Crown, or to diminish it. I am simply wishing by this amendment and the consequential amendments to begin the process of taking the powers from the Secretary of State who is a party Cabinet Minister.
If the hon. Member for Cathcart is upset, I would say to him that the same could be true if the Secretary of State were an extreme figure, or a strongly partisan figure, in the Labour Party and there were a non-Labour majority in the Assembly. The same problem would arise. What I am saying with regard to the Secretary of State's powers is that on major political points there will be different arguments. The argument will relate to the total power of the Assembly. I am arguing that a potential cause of friction should be reduced to the minimum.
The Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish TUC were quite unanimous about the powers of the Secretary of State. They wanted the Secretary of State's supervisory powers taken out of the Bill. That was one of the points on which the Scottish TUC agreed and which we carried through the Troon Conference of the Scottish Labour Party without a dissenting voice. There was no argument, because it was accepted that if an Assembly were to be set up, the supervisory functions of the Secretary of State should be reduced to a minimum.


It was decided that a clearly demarcated area should be left to the Assembly and that it should be allowed to get on with its activities.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: As the supporters of this Bill do so often, my hon. Friend is giving lessons to hon. Members such as me about the decisions of Labour Party Conferences. The national Labour Party Conference decided to come out against elections to the European Assembly. Does my hon. Friend say that necessarily we have to accept that in its entirety? Surely my hon. Friend is not raising as a fundamental argument the fact that, just because a resolution was passed, we have to accept it in its entirety.

Mr. Mackintosh: No. My hon. Friend is right. I do not argue that there is any compulsion on hon. Members to accept that. But, given my hon. Friend's frequent arguments about the force of conference decisions and the need to listen to the party outside and to the trade union movement, I thought that he would accept that this was a fact worth putting forward. It is not a matter which has been dreamed up today. It is one of the major objectives of the Labour Party, the TUC and all associated bodies in Scotland, and it has been accepted by all hon. Members in the Scottish Labour Group. All of them agree about the importance of disentangling the Secretary of State and his functions from this Bill.
The position of the Secretary of State is that his Department ceases to be the Department running Scotland and becomes the Department supervising the Assembly. That is fundamentally dangerous, regardless of our views about devolution. Even those who are opposed to it do not want the Assembly to be unworkable when it comes about.
This is a small constitutional point, but it is designed to reduce friction and to make the Assembly work satisfactorily. When we come to the subsequent amendments dealing with the substantive powers of the Secretary of State in political matters in rents, in teacher superannuation and all the major policy powers reserved for the Secretary of State, there will be a different argument.
These amendments deal entirely with the formal functions of the Secretary of State where the sense in which they are exercised by a party politician is more than normally unsatisfactory and indefensible. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, because he is clearly in a state of agitation.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not in a state of agitation. Nor do I wish to catch out my hon. Friend. But we recollect his eloquent speech to the party's special conference on 17th August 1974. I have a report of that in which he is described as
the former MP for Berwick and East Lothian".
and he is reported as saying that there is an overworked Secretary of State for Scotland. It is my recollection that even he at that conference gave the impression that it was important for Scotland that the Secretary of State should be retained to the Cabinet. If we are talking about election manifestoes—

Mr. Mackintosh: This is irrelevant.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not irrelevant. My hon. Friend said that we should retain the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. When one has been lectured as much as I have about what was said in 1974, I think that I am entitled to ask what my hon. Friend said on that occasion.

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is becoming more boring, tedious and irrelevant than ever. This has nothing whatever to do with my amendment. The retention of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Heffer: Arrogance.

Mr. Mackintosh: The amendment has nothing to do with the position of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet.

Mr. Leadbitter: Perpetual arrogance.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am pleased to be arrogant in dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). He drives anyone to it. But the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has nothing to do with my amendment. The position of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet


does not arise in the amendment. The importance of the Secretary of State as a political controlling factor does not arise. The amendment deals with the formal functions of the Secretary of State in relation to the Assembly which, as in all other subordinate Assemblies of this kind, are not dealt with by a political figure.
I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look at this, and I point out to the Treasury Bench that this is one of the many matters which were agreed throughout the Labour movement, the Scottish TUC and Scottish Labour Members of Parliament. The attitude of the Treasury Bench to amendments of this kind which are not hostile to the Bill but which attempt to make it more workable is of considerable significance to those of us who will contemplate our attitude to a Guillotine later. We shall want to know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Threats."] Yes, threats, because I am interested to know whether the Bill, if and when it is passed, is workable. This is not just a Bill. It is also the constitution of a new government. If the Bill is to work, it must work smoothly, and that must be the approach of even those hon. Gentlemen who dislike the whole idea of devolution.

Mr. Leadbitter: I know that my hon. Friend is getting in a state of overexcitement. Before he gets too overheated could he help us to see things his way? He talked about impartiality and then questioned the integrity of the Secretary of State of whatever party. Will his proposed officer announce an election without discussing it with the Assembly or any part of the Assembly? Will that person say that he has decided that an election will take place, without any consultation, and will there be any political considerations involved? Could my hon. Friend assure us that this wet person, completely free from all political pressures, will not have the power to announce an election without consultation with anyone?

Mr. Mackintosh: First of all, I did not question the integrity of any Secretary of State. Secretaries of State are entitled to their political views. My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I do not question the passionate opposition to this Bill of

the hon. Member for Cathcart. In fact, I admire the zeal with which he pursues it. I am questioning whether that kind of person is suitable to exercise these powers of formal supervision, powers of announcement and control.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Like the Governor-General of Australia.

Mr. Mackintosh: The Governor-General exercised a discretionary power to dismiss the Government of Australia. That does not arise here and has nothing to do with my amendment. That power does not exist. This is a fixed-term Assembly which cannot be got rid of. What I am discussing is a set of formal powers and propositions which are better exercised by a person who is not profoundly political.
My hon. Friend asked me whether such a person would have no political views at all. Of course he may have past political associations, but he will be free of them at the time. He will not be an acting member of a political Cabinet in the United Kingdom. Moreover, obviously there would be consultations, but the consultations would not be liable to the misinterpretation that they had been designed for the interest of a different political party. That is the key point.
I hope that with all the helpful interventions to assist me I have clarified the matter. I have tried to get to the basic issue involved, and I hope that the Government will consider this amendment reasonably and accept it.

Mr. Nick Budgen: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) was inconsistent in the way in which he described the decisions which his proposed Commissioner would make. One moment he said they would be purely formal, and the next moment he said that they could be exercised in a political way. Perhaps that is not inconsistent, but it shows the ambivalent nature of the decisions which could be taken. Someone might take a decision without knowing anything of the facts, and in doing so might embroil himself or herself in a political row. I believe that the dangers of the hon. Member's proposals are far greater than the dangers of the situations in which he points out


it would be possible for politicians to get involved.
Here is the possibility that the Crown might get embroiled in a political row. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian might argue that Governors-General in other countries can and sometimes do get embroiled in political rows. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out from a sedentary position, that happened in Australia. I contend that if that sort of situation occurred in Scotland there would be a real risk to the whole position of the Crown in Scotland. There is of course a distinction between the position of a Governor-General and the position of a Commissioner in Scotland. The Monarch is at least intermittently resident in Scotland. On the other hand, the Monarch is not regularly resident in Australia.
There can be no suggestion of any personal connection between the Monarch and the decisions of the Governor-General in Australia. On the other hand, if a Commissioner were appointed and if that Commissioner were inadvertently to take one of the so-called political decisions in a maladroit way, simply because the Queen is resident in Scotland for a long time each year there would be the risk that the whole position of the monarchy in Scotland would be called into question.
There are those of us on both sides of the Committee who believe that the Bill is likely to break up the unity of the United Kingdom. There are, perhaps, few who would predict that it might lead towards the institution of a separate republic in Scotland. However, if we bring the monarchy even inadvertently into the centre of political rows there is a danger that the whole position of the monarchy in Scotland might be called into question. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) who has reminded me of the position in Northern Ireland under the 1973 Constitution. He reminded me that these so-called formal decisions were taken by the Secretary of State. I am grateful to him for reminding me of that, because it is a good illustration of the need for a political figure who is responsible for those decisions. Such a figure can then be vigorously criticised and can defend himself in a vigorous way also.
Finally, I say to those who believe that on occasions the monarchy in this country takes decisions which could be of a political nature that of course that situation is quite different. The rôle of the monarchy has changed gradually in a strange but known way over the years until we now have the present constitution of what is, happily, still the United Kingdom. There the monarchy has a strange rôle. First, it had a highly political rôle, and then it slowly changed. As that change has occurred so markers have been put down in our history, so that when the monarchy exercises any discretion which might be of a political nature there are conventions which guide the Monarch in the exercise of those discretions. Therefore it is difficult for the Monarch, while exercising apparently political discretions, to be brought within the political arena. The Monarch is plainly bound by precedents and convention.
If the Monarch or a Commissioner appointed by the Monarch is given political or quasi-political powers unbound by convention or precedents, there is a real danger that the Monarch, resident as she so often is in Scotland, might be brought within the political arena, and we should then end up in this unhappy Bill not only breaking up the unity of the United Kingdom but doing irreparable damage to the monarchy.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) should be so touchy and irritable and, I am afraid, somewhat rude, because I have had many discussions and debates with him at Labour Party conferences and elsewhere and I have always found that he has debated in a most courteous way.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend has been lucky.

Mr. Heffer: But for some reason or other, he is so passionate for this Bill and so passionate in the belief that it is right and everyone else apparently wrong, that he cannot accept that we can disagree with him without his becoming irritable and dismissing us as if we ought not to raise any objections to the arguments he is putting forward. That is why I think a number of my hon. Friends


thought that he was showing undue arrogance. Perhaps that is a trait that he has developed of late, but I hope that it will not develop too far, because we shall be discussing these matters in a sensible, intelligent and rational way. We shall not do that very well if we get into that state. I appeal to my hon. Friend to cool it a little in debates of this kind.
I turn now to the amendment. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, SouthWest (Mr. Budgen) referred to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), whose politics I do not share, but if he was Secretary of State for Scotland—God forbid—he would be the Secretary of State for Scotland representing not the Westminster Government but the Government of all parts of the United Kingdom.
I do not like the emotive phrase "Westminster Government". We sit at Westminster, but we represent, as far as I understand it, both as a Parliament and as a Government, the people of all parts of the United Kingdom. Parliament is based at Westminster. It could have been based in Birmingham or Oxford. At one peak period in the Civil War I think that it was based for a short period in the town in which I was born—Hertford. I am not absolutely certain about that. If it was not based at Hertford, it was certainly near there. We have a Parliament Square in Hertford because, for a temporary period—perhaps a day or so— Parliament was there.
The point is that it is a mere matter of history. Parliament could have been anywhere. I do not like emotive phrases about Westminster because they conjure up the concept—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is in England.

Mr. Heffer: It could have been in Edinburgh. I should have liked a position where we changed from year to year and had our Parliament in different parts of the United Kingdom. Of course that would be difficult, because of the problems of transporting the whole bureaucracy each time. However, it could have been done. But it is still a matter of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and not of Westminster.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be interested to recall, in line

with what he is saying, that the medieval Parliament used to move around and sit in different parts of the country. What anchored it at Westminster was the fact that the files became so large that it was not possible to move them around.

Mr. Heffer: It is quite obvious that the growth of bureaucracy has gone on throughout the ages. I merely wanted to point out that I did not like the constant emotive use of the term.
I am somewhat suspicious of my hon. Friend's motives. He says that it is merely a formal matter to appoint some sort of non-political Commissioner in place of the Secretary of State. Apart from anything else, I doubt very much whether a Commissioner could be strictly non-political. It is a theoretical possibility.
I think that what is proposed by my hon. Friend is the thin end of the wedge. He wants to leave with the Secretary of State those matters which are strictly political.

Mr. Robert Hughes: No.

Mr. Heffer: That makes it even worse.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) will later seek to remove the Secretary of State from all the holding-back powers of the Assembly.

Mr. Heffer: That more than strengthens my case.

Mr. Robert Hughes: This is a paving amendment.

Mr. Heffer: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian said that he wished political matters to remain political, but if he does not, if it is the other way round, it is the thin end of the wedge to remove the Cabinet Minister representing the whole United Kingdom from any responsibility for Scotland. That is in line with what my hon. Friend argued in a pamphlet in which he called for a Scottish Parliament, not an Assembly. He used the term "Parliament" himself. He said that we were talking about a new Government—not a Government for the whole United Kingdom, not an Assembly with an Executive, but a new Government for Scotland.

Mr. Mackintosh: That is what we are setting up.

Mr. Heffer: That is even more reason why I am against the Bill. My hon. Friend gives me added reasons all the time. I am delighted that it has all come out.
Do the people of Scotland want a new Government purely for Scotland? They will have to be asked in a referendum before we can say that that is what they want. They may want nothing of the kind. It may well all be the figment of a few people's imagination. The present proposal is the thin end of the wedge to remove the political responsibility from the British Cabinet altogether. That is not acceptable.
My hon. Friend talked about decisions of the conference of the Labour Party in Scotland. He knows that I was there and heard the debate. I saw how the vote went. I was also at last year's Labour Party Conference for the United Kingdom. Being on the National Executive, I had to listen to the debates without speaking.

Mr. Robert Hughes: That must have been a hell of a strain.

Mr. Heffer: It was a strain, particularly on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Lord President, speaking for the National Executive, did not say then that he was against a referendum. He was rather cagey, because the Government were having second thoughts about the referendum. The conference resolution rejected the idea of a referendum, but within weeks after our return to the House that resolution was ignored. Conference decisions are conference decisions. Over the years my right hon. Friend has said that he has never been bound by every conference decision. Of course he has not. Nobody can be bound—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): I am sure that conference decisions are interesting, but I wish that they were relevant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Heffer: I submit that what I am saying is related to the amendment, Sir Stephen, because my hon. Friend said that his proposal was a decision of the Scottish Labour Party Conference. That

decision was made, but a further decision was agreed at a later conference in relation to the referendum. Yet the later decision was almost immediately abandoned. Therefore, the argument about a conference decision does not cut much ice. My point is related to the amendment. I realise that I may appear to be going a little wide of it, and I apologise if that is the case. Anyway, I think that I have made my point now.

Mr. Dalyell: Had a clear and expressed promise of the intention that the office of Secretary of State for Scotland would remain not been given at the Scottish conference in August 1974, none of this would have been agreed by that conference.

Mr. Heffer: I want to bring my comments to a conclusion. This is a most dangerous proposal, irrespective of who the Secretary of State for Scotland may be. If we wish to carry out the spirit of the Bill and to retain the unity of the United Kingdom, it is essential that the Secretary of State should play a positive rôle in the future of Scotland and in the future of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: There have been so many expressions of brotherly love scattered around the Government Benches that one has felt tempted to leave the debate to Labour Members. When a conference decision is not a conference decision is a matter of infinite interest. The answer seems to be, when one disagrees with it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is obsessional in his views about the possibility of a break-up of the United Kingdom. He objected to the use of the terms "Government" and "Parliament", in relation to the devolved Assemblies, by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). But I should remind the hon. Member for Walton that the Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont was always referred to as a Parliament and as the Stormont Government. Yet no part of the United Kingdom was so addicted to Westminster as Northern Ireland, and so determined to remain a part of it.
The importance of this series of amendments has been exaggerated out of all


proportion. The argument is that those decisions that ought to be made formally could be utilised by certain persons for political ends—for example, there could be postponement of elections. If such a decision were made by a political person, it is argued, it would be much more suspect. The proposal is to ensure that the formal functions, at present ascribed to the Secretary of State, will be discharged by someone who will not be involved in the day-to-day melée of political life. That seems to be a manifestly sensible proposal, and I support it.
One of the problems raised by the Bill is that we are going into uncharted waters. There is no precedent for the relationship that will exist between Scotland and Wales and the United Kingdom Parliament. I would have thought that everybody—whether for or against devolution —would have been at pains to remove all possible areas of friction. Surely, to allow a manifestly political figure to exercise what should be formal functions and to take formal decisions is risking additional friction.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman as someone who supports the amendment, tell me what view he takes on whom the Commissioner should consult before taking a formal decision under subsection (2) on whether to vary the date of an election? On the basis of the amendment, should the Commissioner consult the Government, the Cabinet, the Scottish Assembly, or whom?

Mr. Hooson: I am answering this off the cuff. I think that he should consult all interested parties. In this country the Monarch takes decisions which are essentially political, but she does so on advice. The Monarch, who announces the decisions, is not the subject of attack because of those decisions. Those advising her may be, but the person who exercises the function is not.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that those decisions are guided by both precedent and convention and that, therefore, by that discipline, the Monarch is prevented from getting right into the political arena?

Mr. Hooson: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, over the centuries the British people have displayed a great and practical gift for government and for establishing certain precedents, even in new situations. I think that we should leave it to the wisdom of those who have been involved in Government and Parliament over many years and who will undoubtedly influence the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in their early years. I have no doubt that, without formalising the people who should be consulted, it will become natural to accept that certain people are consulted. However, it would be more acceptable if the decision and the function were discharged by a figure who is not involved in the day-to-day battles.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the calling of an election. The Government may say to the Monarch "We think that the election should be held in three weeks' time."

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Monarch does not have to take that advice.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is quite right. But what happens if the Commissioner gets advice from the Secretary of State that the election should be held two months later than is proposed and advice from the Scottish Assembly that it should be held two months earlier? Whose advice should he take? There are two Governments, not one.

Mr. Hooson: It is well known that the Monarch sometimes can receive conflicting advice, but she is not bound by the advice given to her by the Cabinet. In certain situations, especially when there is a close political position within Parliament, the Monarch is entitled to take other advice. She is not bound by the initial advice given to her.
This is making a mountain of a molehill. The amendment seeks to remove possible grounds of friction. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who is concerned about and frequently attacks the Bill, would welcome the amendment as a means of removing one potential threat to the unity of the Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: I have doubts about the interpretation of recent Irish history as propounded by the hon. and learned


Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). The Lord President will correct me if I am wrong. If there had been no Stormont, is it conceivable that the Labour Government of 1945–51 or, for that matter, the Conservative Government of 1951–64, interesting themselves, as they would have had to do, in the position in Northern Ireland, would not have done something about the housing situation? One can imagine the speeches which would have been made 30 years ago by the then young hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport on the question of discrimination in housing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hooson: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: I will give way, but this is a point which must be made.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely he is completely off the point. I was dealing with the terms "Parliament" and "Government" and the use made of them in referring to the Stormont Parliament and the Stormont Government. I confined myself entirely to that point.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept that.
I turn now to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It may be tedious and boring, as he said, but, when he was pressed as to who the person should be, he said "For example, it should be someone such as the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland."

Mr. Mackintosh: Not the Moderator. The Commissioner.

Mr. Dalyell: We can check with Hansard. I thought that my hon. Friend said "Moderator".

Mr. Mackintosh: The Moderator is a clergyman. I am talking about the Commissioner appointed by the Crown. The Moderator is a clergyman—quite a different figure.

Mr. Dalyell: I stand corrected. I was under the impression—it may have been a slip of the tongue—that I heard the hon. Gentleman say "Moderator".

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is quite clear to me that none of these

amendments deals with the Moderator of the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: We can check with Hansard. It is clear that there will be a possible confrontation between any Secretary of State for Scotland and any Commissioner. They will fight like Kilkenny cats or like rutting stags. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian raises a very real problem. It is no less a problem when he says that different political complexions would be involved. If my hon. Friend were the Prime Minister of Scotland and someone else were the Secretary of State, there might be problems even if they were both in the same party.
This is a confrontation situation, and I do not see how my hon. Friend's amendment will solve it. We come back to the basic problem. We cannot have a subordinate Parliament which is part, but only a part, of a unitary State while at the same time maintaining that unitary State. That is the proposition to which we must return.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish to lend my support to the amendment. I agree with the comment of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that this is an amendment with a very narrow range. The discretion given in Clause 3 to the Secretary of State is limited. The life of the Parliament or Assembly will be limited to four years. In other words, we shall not have the process of gerrymandering which Governments have been known to practise in the past. That is one thing which the four-year period will give us.
The clause will create a situation in which an election may be held either two months before the mandatory date or two months after, giving a four-month period in which the Secretary of State or the Commissioner can choose to hold the election. This period is far too long, regardless of whether it is exercised by a Commissioner or the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it gives some scope to the person who makes the choice to arrange a date which may be suitable or unsuitable to a given political interest.
A situation might arise in which a Scottish Assembly will be set up with certain powers which will, in certain circumstances, prevent the Secretary of


State from intervening or interfering. If the Secretary of State is closely involved, for reasons of party or character, in monitoring the decisions of the Assembly, there will be scope for friction.
Following the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, if we want to cut out any friction it would be better to take out of the political arena the person whose party interests might be at variance with an Administration of another political colour. Hon. Members might immediately rush in to say that the present incumbent of the office of Secretary of State could be exonerated from accusations of any such base motives, but who can say who the Secretary of State will be in future?
The amendment seeks to remove from the Secretary of State the duty or right to fix the date of elections. I have no objection to the Secretary of State for Scotland or for Wales being able to set in motion the first mechanism under which the Assembly takes its birth. There are practical reasons for setting that mechanism going which are acceptable, but it is unacceptable that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise that political discretion for ensuing elections.
It is suggested that a non-political figure should exercise that right. I would prefer the Queen in Council to take that decision directly. However, for the purposes of any vote that may take place on the amendment, the interim proposal by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is acceptable.
In Australia the Governor-General had been nominated with the support of the Labour Party and there was a row and fuss when he took a decision which ran counter to the interests of the Labour Government at that time. Had the Governor-General been actively involved in political affairs and thus taking part in a political battle in party political terms with his counterpart who was heading the Administration, one can imagine what would have happened.
That situation will develop in Scotland. Let us assume that there is a Conservative Administration in the House of Commons with a Conservative Secretary of State, and a Labour Administration in the Assembly. Whatever else happens,

there will be a running political battle between the Labour and Conservative parties that will spill over from the Assembly to the House of Commons and back again. Therefore, the fixing of the date for an election by the Secretary of State will be controversial. There will be a period of four months during which that date can be fixed, but the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) once said that a week is a long time in politics. There is scope for political wheeling and dealing.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that he would prefer the decision to be taken by the Queen in Council. What is the difference between the decision being taken by the Secretary of State, and by the Queen in Council? They mean exactly the same thing, namely a decision which is taken by the Westminster Cabinet.

Mr. Wilson: I do not accept that. I understand that the Queen in Council is, on most issues, the representative of the Cabinet. But the Queen has certain rights to accept or not to accept advice. Those rights would transfer to the Scottish situation. As the holder of the Prerogative she would have the duty to decide the best course of action. The Secretary of State is an active party politician who is at war with other political parties. Any decision taken by him, even for the fairest of reasons, could be subject to suspicion. Justice should be seen to be done as well as be done. The best way to achieve that is through the proposal made by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian or that which I have suggested.
Suggestions were made earlier in the debate that the Crown might be involved in political conflict. The Crown is held in respect in Scotland. I cannot see that there is any more likelihood of conflict developing in Scotland than there is in England.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Leadbitter: Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was caught on a matter of some considerable constitutional importance. Although it may be of interest to the Committee to be discussing the appointment of a Commissioner by


the Queen in Council, what we are really discussing is not the question of the appointment but the function.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is perfectly right in making the very telling point that the function of such an appointment—to determine the questions under subsections (1) and (2)— is exactly the same as it would be if carried out by the Secretary of State. That is very important. I should have thought that it was the functional part to which we must attend and that we should bear in mind that the procedural steps towards determining the election would be the same as they would be for the Secretary of State, and they would involve Cabinet members in Council and the considerations that any Secretary of State would have to face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the thin end of the wedge.
On that matter, the Committee should perhaps listen with some care to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who makes his intermittent appearances in the Chamber and his sharper disappearances. He was so exuberant, so over-heated, so determined and so swingeing in his comments about his colleagues—which were quite unmerited, particularly as we get on generally very well together—that I was wondering why, on such an apparently moot point, he was getting himself so agitated.
The fact is that my hon. Friend is anxious—and is expressing that state of anxiety—to get the amendment through, because it is totally reliant upon that that his calculations for the future functions of the Secretary of State being taken out of the Bill rest. That is the sole purpose of my hon. Friend's approach.
I would not have been so concerned if he had said "This is a very easy problem. I think that the House of Commons, in all reasonableness, can accept that it would be helpful to the Secretary of State if one had a Commissioner appointed by the Queen in Council to do this small and not so important task, within the parameters of a two-month period either side of the date laid down in the Bill— to call the election." If he had said something like that, I should have thought

that there was some sense in it. I should never has suspected anything about what was to happen in relation to the rest of the Bill concerning the Secretary of State's functions. My hon. Friend has nailed himself to the cross by letting the cat out of the bag and saying "If you do not give me this, all my calculations for the Secretary of State will fall to the ground." [Interruption.] In other words—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will restrain themselves. I am having a little difficulty in following the mixed metaphors myself.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is not only the thin end of the wedge. It is the wedge.
We come to the question of Clause 3(1). If, as the Government said on an earlier amendment, it is the Secretary of State's right, according to this subsection, to make the appointed day by order, the plea by the Government being—as I heard it; I suspect correctly—that the Secretary of State should have this function because the Government need some flexibility, then that was the point made in the debate on a Liberal amendment for the election for the Assemblies to be on 28th March 1978. When the Government made that assertion, I thought that they had made it clear that they were anxious for the Secretary of State to have this flexibility.
Subsection (1) provides that subsequent elections shall be on the third Thursday of March in the fourth following year. In other words, elections will take place automatically after the first elections. So all that the amendment deals with is the extent of the flexibility in subsection (2) under which the Secretary of State can vary the date of the election within two months before or after the appointed day. We should ask my hon. Friend therefore to make it clear that that is the extent of the debate on his amendment—

Mr. Mackintosh: Eight amendments.

Mr. Leadbitter: —and the group which follows. I have counted. If my hon. Friend wants to make an issue of that, it is up to him. We all understand that we are talking about the related amendments as well.
If that is the extent of the amendment, we must be careful about the consequences of my hon. Friend's argument. We come back once again to the unity


of the United Kingdom and the function of Parliament. Even under Clause 3, an order would have to come to this House. My hon. Friend is therefore seeking, even if only marginally, to remove an important function from the House of Commons and the British Government. Our concept of an Assembly must be different from his concept of a Parliament and a Scottsh Government.
If the Committee should make the mistake of accepting the amendment, my hon. Friend could use that fact in subsequent debates as an argument to support the removal of further powers from the Secretary of State. The Committee should resist that.

Sir Raymond Gower: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that this matter could be made to appear more important than it is. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said that the amendments related to formal powers which were better exercised by a personage of the type he described than by the Secretary of State. Yet in reply to me, he protested that the particular power of setting the date of the first elections was far too important to be held by a political figure. Far from being merely formal, at least one of these powers—and conceivably two—was too important to be held by a political Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian shakes his head in disagreement. Perhaps he will elucidate the apparent difference in his remarks.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman may recall this point better than I do, but I am under the impression that my point was that once the Bill has been passed, if it has been passed, the calling of the initial elections and the starting of the machinery should remain as formal functions. That is not to say that there can be no prospect of having elections once the Bill is passed.

Sir R. Gower: The hon. Gentleman referred to a "political Secretary of State". He instanced my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and said that a political Secretary of State might conceivably delay the first elections for some reason. He implied

that it would be far safer to have a non-political figure. I accept that argument to some degree but there is another aspect. I do not accept that these are purely formal matters. This is an illustration of one that is fairly important.
I do not often find myself almost entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but that is the position on this occasion. Psychologically—that is the important thing—the step proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian would appear to be inconsistent with the wording of Clause 1. If we return to that master clause, if it can be so called, we find that it states that
The following provisions … do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
I cannot conceive the sort of Assembly that the hon. Gentleman has in mind being reconciled with that clause.

Mr. George Cunningham: Nor can anyone else.

Sir R. Gower: I agree that the rest of the Bill gives one leave to doubt the authority of Clause 1, but we must assume that Parliament has passed the Bill and that that is the linchpin of the Bill.

Mr. Hooson: A mere county council.

Sir R. Gower: The matter goes far beyond that clause. Indeed, in a Freudian slip the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said that this is a new kind of Government.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is.

Sir R. Gower: I think that the hon. Gentleman was thinking of something fundamentally different. It is different in that we have not had it before, but it is supposed to be a Government or Assembly that does not in any way affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of the Westminster Parliament. If we lessen the authority of the only member of the Government here who has power under the Bill— namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland—we shall be heading in that direction. By implication the retention of the Secretary of State is meant to be an earnest of Clause 1.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is over-emphasising this point. An American will talk about the New York State Government and the Washington Government, while a German will talk about the Bavarian Government and the Bonn Government. Everyone knows that the Bavarian Government are subordinate to the Bonn Government and that the New York State Government are subordinate to the Washington Government but people still use the term "Government". The fact that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) used the term "Government" in no way implies that he is trying to break up the United Kingdom.

Sir R. Gower: I should agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman if the system that we are forming were to be anything remotely like New York or Bavaria, which are both parts of a federal system. I hope that he accepts the difference. Here we have something quite different. No person living in New York State thinks that New York is likely to break apart from the rest of the United States. I do not suppose that anyone in the Federal Republic of West Germany imagines that one of the constituent parts is likely to break adrift. Here we have something quite different from those two examples. We have something that has no precedent. It has been described as open-ended. It is an Assembly which, if it does not succeed, will claim through its Members that it does not have enough money or it does not have enough power. In both cases Westminster would be deemed to be responsible. That is the weakness of the scheme. The presence of the Secretary of State as a member of the Government was meant to be an earnest of the retention of unity represented by the Westminster Government.
Psychologically, this will be another step towards weakening our sense of unity in the nation. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that one can overstate the case, but one must not underestimate the situation.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that in Scotland and Wales the holder of the office of Secretary of State has a great prestige in that office? Would it not be human nature for a Prime Minister in any Assembly to seek to downgrade that

prestige? Would that not create a rival situation, which would put the occupant of the Secretary of State's chair in an impossible situation?

Sir R. Gower: Inevitably, there will be a tendency for the prestige of the office of Secretary of State to be lessened by the presence or creation of these Assemblies, but I hope that I have said enough to justify my view that this amendment, although plausibly and fairly presented, will not contribute to the unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Lamond: Although I do not support these amendments, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on initiating this debate. In my opinion, he was a little irritated by the interventions because he felt no doubt that the debate on the Bill had now reached a situation of entrenched views.
I admit that I have not been present during the long debates on this Bill. That is a disadvantage, but it is also an advantage in that I come prepared to listen to the arguments.
My hon. Friend said that the functions which he proposes to transfer from the Secretary of State were formal ones. However, later in his remarks he changed that a little and said that the duties were formal in the sense that once the Bill became an Act the initiation of the new Assembly would take place.
I would say that these matters are very political indeed. One of the greatest weapons in the hands of a Prime Minister is his ability to call an election at a time that suits him. Therefore, the time at which Assembly elections take place is very valuable. In later elections there is a flexibility involving a period of two months on either side of the four-year period, which could also be valuable. We all know that a period of four months can make some difference to an election result. This applies particularly to local government elections when the turn-outs reflect opinions about the activities of central Government, although not necessarily the body for which the electorate is voting.
I repeat that these are very political functions which are to be carried out by the Secretary of State. It is wrong of us


to try to pretend that they are not, and, in pretending that they are not, to say that, if we appoint someone called a Commissioner, that will remove from people's minds the idea that these are political decisions.
No matter that all 635 of us went throughout the country saying that the decision to call an election at a certain time was not political but was made by the commissioner, who took no account of the political outcome, the people who were dissatisfied with his decision would be convinced that it had been made from a political point of view. Therefore, we could not in any way convince people that it was not a political decision, and it is not weakening but strengthening the Bill to make it clear that the decision will be taken by the Secretary of State—taken, I am sure, with all the political considerations and advice given to him, and clearly understood by the people to have been made from a political point of view. There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Dalyell: Hear hear.

Mr. Lamond: I do not think that "political" is a dirty word, that it necessarily means a bad decision or something to be ashamed of. We are all in politics here, and we should be proud and prepared to accept and admit that a decision we have made is political and that we are entitled to make it.
If it happens to come about that the Secretary of State at a certain time is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), he will have been placed in that position by the electors, and he will be entitled to make a political decision. I shall not complain about that. I do not think that anyone else is entitled to complain about it. No doubt some hon. Members opposite feel that we could produce people to whom they would object, but if one is elected to a majority one is entitled to make political decisions. We should not try to hide behind a Commissioner. Although I appreciate the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, I cannot support him.

Mr. Dalyell: A very good speech.

Mr. Powell: I would not have intervened, and I do so only very briefly, but for the attempt by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)

to cite the example of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, in its application to Northern Ireland, as evidence that to set up a parliamentary Assembly where the functions of the Sovereign are exercised in respect of it by a person such as a Commissioner or a Governor does not lead by implication to political separation of the territory represented in that Assembly.
It cannot be too often restated that the 1920 Act was a Home Rule Act. It differed from the 1914 Act only in applying separately to the two parts of the Island of Ireland, but no one can read it without seeing that it was clearly designed to bring about Home Rule, to bring about what might broadly be described as Dominion status.
The reason why that did not happen was that those who, by reason of having a majority, worked it for 50 years were determined that it should not have that consequence. Whatever they did or did not do, they so managed affairs that the consequence which was intended to follow, which was implicit in that situation, did not happen.

Mr. Mackintosh: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House when he says that the 1914 Act was intended to produce Dominion status. It was clearly specified that Ireland was to be in an economic unity with the United Kingdom and there was a degree of subordination to the United Kingdom Parliament which no Dominion has ever contemplated. It was a devolution Act.

Mr. Powell: I know all that, and I know, as the hon. Gentleman does, what happened to the southern half of it—the southern half of what the Government say that Scotland is, a nation. The citing of any machinery of the 1920 Act as though it would show that similar machinery could be put into this Bill without implying the risk and consequence of separation is calculated to mislead.
I am a high Tory but I am astonished by the propositions that I have heard in this debate regarding the exercise of the Prerogative. It has been suggested that there ought to be a Commissioner, who would be a non-political personage, and that he would take decisions which are essentially political and potentially controversial.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has not yet had an answer to the one question that matters. On whose advice will that person act? That person must act on advice otherwise he is outside all control whatsoever. It has been said that Her Majesty could reject advice tendered to her to dissolve Parliament. But if she rejects that advice, one of two things happens. Either the adviser withdraws his advice and carries on or else he resigns and she must find another adviser whose advice she will accept about whether to carry on without an election or to dissolve.
All exercise of the Prerogative is covered prospectively or retrospectively by advice. We have to ask: however limited by the ambit of this clause, on whose advice is this person to act? If this person is to act upon the advice of the Executive, supported by the majority of the Assembly, then in effect we have a self-governing constitution. We have a constitution where the actions of the sovereign are carried out upon the advice of the Executive supported by the majority in the Assembly. It is, in fact, a decidedly and decisively separatist decision.
Conversely, the writing into the clause of the Secretary of State is the assertion both constitutionally and practically that the responsibility ultimately lies with the Secretary of State within Her Majesty's Government responsible to this House of Commons.
I said both practically and constitutionally. Practically for the reason that quite obviously one of the reasons why the provisions are put into Clause 3 is that the holding of the Assembly elections has a certain relationship to what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, a United Kingdom Minister responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament is, it seems to me, logically and practically given the duty of making these decisions and applying them under the machinery of the Act.
But even if there was not this decisive practical and simple reason, it would be constitutionally vital that the functions of the sovereign in relation to the Assemblies we are setting up should be carried out on the advice of a Minister responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament. Otherwise, we would be in the most

blatant contradiction of the assertion in Clause 1 and the professed intentions of the Government as well as, I believe, of the great majority of the House.

Mr. Peter Rees: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain whether the Governor-General of Ireland in the old days, operating from Dublin, was directly responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament?

Mr. Powell: Before 1920 the whole Island of Ireland was represented in this Parliament and the Government of Ireland was carried out by Her Majesty's Ministers ultimately responsible to this House. There is no analogy there with the state of affairs which was intended to be inaugurated by the 1914 Act or to any state of affairs which could arise out of this Bill.
I should like in one sentence to refer to the intervention of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about Northern Ireland's relevance. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that hon. Members of this House had not concerned themselves between 1921 and 1972 with housing and housing policy in Northern Ireland. My observation on that is "Just so". That shows that it is not possible in practice to reconcile the assertion in Clause 1, which places upon this House a continuing responsibility and power of intervention to deal with whatever happens—in that case in Northern Ireland and here in Scotland—with the devolution of legislative powers even to such an Assembly as this Bill is setting up.
It is our experience that, whichever way and on whatever amendment we examine this Bill, we discover that it is inherently instable. What it is doing must verge either in one direction or in the other. It must verge backwards towards this House resuming its responsibility for all aspects, things and persons whatsoever in Scotland, or it must verge in the ether direction towards the gradual or perhaps rapid arrival of Home Rule and possibly even separation in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Powell: I have sat down.

Mr. Dalyell: —will he—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has sat down.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: On the matter with which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has just mentioned, there was of course one characteristic in this House which made it especially difficult for any hon. Member to take any interest in, for example, housing matters in Northern Ireland—was the convention that prohibted hon. Members raising questions or having any debate about Northern Ireland affairs in this House. Should this Bill unfortunately, pass on to the statute book, it would be essential that this House should not repeat that mistake. But I must say that I have my doubts whether the House would do that or whether we would sustain that claim over a long period of time.
I want principally to draw a lesson from the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on the topic about which he had words before. When the hon. Gentleman was asking for the Crown to exercise rights in this respect in its own right—personally—the right hon. Member for Down, South did not seem to believe that the hon. Gentleman really wanted that to happen but that what he wanted was that, ultimately, the Crown would exercise those rights on the advice of the Scottish Government as it would rapidly come to be called. I prefer to take the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East at face value and to assume that when he talked of the Queen doing this personally he meant something at least like that.
I repeat that the hon. Member for Dundee, East must not get confused about terms by referring to "the Queen in Council" as if that can be anything different from "the Queen on the advice of Ministers", whether it is on the advice of United Kingdom Ministers or on the advice of Scottish Ministers. There are already other Ministers who constitute advisers to the Queen and who can be referred to as the Queen in Council…Her Majesty's Canadian Ministers, for example: there are separate Privy Councillors in Canada. If we assume that what the hon. Member for Dundee, East is saying is that the Queen, taking advice from

here and everywhere, as she wishes, should then determine what the date of an election should be, that is one of the absurdities that we get into with this kind of absurd proposal.
We have been told that a large part of the justification for this measure is to take power back to the people. we are being told that a not totally unimportant decision should go back to where it has not been since the first half of the seventeenth century, namely, personally in the Crown.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In my suggestion the Queen would take her advice from within Scotland—either from the Executive or from the Assembly—rather than from United Kingdom Ministers, because the election being envisaged is not to this Parliament but to the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Cunningham: There we have the matter clearly. I was taking the hon. Member's words at face value. We must always remember that if the Crown is acting upon advice it must be clear whose advice it is. It cannot be for the Crown to decide who should give the advice.
These difficulties relating to the Queen and the Governor-General are not problems which applied only decades ago. The Australian case has proved that, and it is only 50 years since the famous King/ Byng case in Canada. Whenever there is doubt about the proper rôle of the Governor-General or the Queen there is confusion. It does seem a little odd that in a measure that is supposed to give more power to the people, a suggestion should be made that we put one little bit of power back to where it has not been for 300 years.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: All those hon. Members who have been present at this rather lengthy debate will agree that it has been most unsatisfactory. We did not have any indication from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) exactly what problem he was trying to solve or exactly what he had in mind. The only justification he put forward was that he thought there was a danger of myself being the Secretary of State for Scotland, as described in Clause 3, and he felt that certain precautionary steps needed to be taken.
As we are taking a long time over this Bill, the hon. Gentleman, even though he has been appointed a professor—for which we congratulate him—has a duty to explain and justify his amendment. His attitude to all Members, including those on his own side, has been unfortunate and somewhat discourteous. Whenever he speaks I think of the old saying that I learned in school:
And still they gazed and still their wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.

Mr. Mackintosh: As I explained my amendment three times over I would have thought that the hon. Member would grasp it. I repeated it to the boredom of the Committee, I thought. I did not refer to the dangers of his being Secretary of State; I mentioned any Secretary of State with strong political opinions. The desire to diminish disputes between such a person and an Assembly of a different political complexion applies to any Secretary of State.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that a substantial number of intelligent Members sat through his speech and listened to his arguments, yet all the speeches that have been made on this amendment have made it abundantly clear that he did not make his case plain and that many questions are still unanswered. The trouble with the hon. Member is that he assumes that he knows everything and that no one else knows anything at all.
I want to ask the Secretary of State some questions that I hope will elucidate the issue. The hon. Member said that this did not matter a great deal, because we were dealing with formal and essentially cosmetic matters. We sometimes see orders on the House of Commons Table which are cosmetic. They approve expenditure of, say, £569 million and are signed by a Government Whip as a Lord of the Treasury. It does not matter whether it is a Left- or Right-Wing Whip who is authorising expenditure on a Polaris submarine. We know that he does not make the decision, even though he signs the cheque.
If the hon. Member is saying that there is a chance of real conflict, we shall not solve it by pretending that power does not reside where it actually does. The Secretary of State must tell the Committee

whether these powers are genuinely cosmetic and do not matter at all. I would argue, on the basis of what I have read of the Bill, that the powers to be exercised by this new Lord High Commissioner are not just formal or cosmetic powers but very important powers, which could have a substantial political effect.
First, under subsection (1), the date of the first election is to be set. If the Bill becomes law and the referendum pronounces in favour, there will have to be an election for the Scottish Assembly, and of course all the parties will want to win. The Conservatives will be confident and optimistic. The Secretary of State for Scotland, with all his experience of organising elections, will want the Labour Party to win, and of course the Nationalists will want victory. The date on which the election is held will therefore matter a great deal.
Supposing that there was the chance of holding the election two weeks before a Budget or two weeks after: if a political figure were able to know approximately what might be in that Budget, the date of the election could be arranged to have a fundamental effect on the result.
Clause 3 provides that the elections shall be held every four years, but under subsection (2) the Secretary of State has the power to vary that date by as much as four months. One right hon. Gentleman told us once that a week was a long time in politics. He was right. Four months is even longer. We were told recently that the vast majority of Labour voters in Scotland supported the Bill. Since then the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has been trying to explain the Bill to Scotland. We shall have the result of that in a very short time. Meanwhile, an opinion poll published yesterday showed 42 per cent. of Labour voters against the Bill and 41 per cent. in favour. That change has taken place in a short time.
In the circumstances, therefore, time matters a great deal. If the Secretary of State has a margin of four months in which to decide on the date of the election that is significant. These, therefore, are not just formal powers, but are important powers that fundamentally affect the constitutional make-up of the Scottish Assembly.
If we accept the amendment to try to take politics out of this issue we come


to the second important question. If, instead of the Secretary of State, we are to have this Lord High Commissioner—a person respected by all the parties and all people, and a person with no political views—he will make the decision on the basis of advice. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked the fundamental question—"Whose advice?" The hon. Gentleman said that the Commissioner should take soundings from within Scotland, that is from the Scottish Executive, from the Members of the Scottish Assembly and from the Government of Scotland.
Our present system is to have a Secretary of State who is a member of the United Kingdom Cabinet. There may be a case, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, for having a self-governing Assembly, deciding the dates of its elections for itself, although I do not agree with that case.
There is a case for saying, as the Government are saying, that the Secretary of State should make this decision. It should be the United Kingdom Cabinet. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has argued over the years, it should be a Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. There is an argument both ways, but what I suggest to hon. Members who have said that it is a way of avoiding friction is that one way of creating friction would be to have a situation in which we do not define whose advice it should be when it is not clear whether—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Scotland and Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Taylor: As I said, it has been suggested that one of the reasons for

this amendment was to avoid friction, but I think that the one way of creating friction is to not make clear on whose advice the decision should be made. It is certainly one or the other. If it is left up in the air the problem will not be resolved.
The hon. Member must be aware that there could be circumstances in which the British Government would want the election to be held as early as possible within the four months and the Executive in the Scottish Assembly, perhaps of a different political complexion, would want it held as late as possible. If we have this grand Lord High Commissioner, whose advice should he take? There will be political advice from both sides.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has made the point better than most of us. He said that the Secretary of State would be a political figure and would take the decision of the first election and the timing of subsequent elections before or after a Budget to get the maximum party advantage for his side. What relationship will that Secretary of State have in the subsequent years with an Assembly that feels that it has either triumphed over his politics or been defeated by them?

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, and is the object of his amendment to say, that the Assembly should determine the date of its own election—that it should be the Executive which decides this? That seems to be the implication of what he is saying. He is arguing for a self-governing Assembly with the Assembly Executive deciding the dates of its own elections. If that is what he is arguing for he should have the guts to table an amendment saying exactly that, and not come here to try to persuade members of the Committee that this is an amendment that has no consequences—that it refers only to formal powers, which do not matter. If he wants to say that the Executive should decide, in his amendment he should refer not to the Secretary of State for Scotland but to the Executive. He has not done that; he has tried to give the impression that this is a formal amendment and that it does not matter.
We also have the third question, which was hinted at by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who tried to


interrupt his hon. Friend, who was so discourteous to him that his hon. Friend asked who would be the great Lord High Commissioner, this respected person. The hon. Gentleman, knowing so much of Scotland, said that we had a Lord High Commissioner in the Church of Scotland —the very person. What he did not say was what kind of people have been Lord High Commissioners. The last one I saw was one of the most controversial ex-members of a Labour Cabinet, an active member of the Labour Cabinet when I was in the House of Commons. But she was not controversial as a Commissioner because she did not have controversial things to do as Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland.
I say to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that if he were to suggest for Lord High Commissioner a person who was an ex-Labour Cabinet Minister and if he were to suggest that that was the appropriate person to be non-political, I would not agree. Whom do we have as Commissioners? Generally we have people who have played a part in politics, or who are peers. I think that it is possible to find a non-controversial peer. Many of us can think of an ideal non-controversial peer. My noble Friend Lord Carrington is an obvious one who comes to mind. But there are many wild Left-wing fanatics, such as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who may be looking for a seat in the Scottish Assembly and who may regard any peer as someone who could not reach an objective decision when the interests of Socialism were involved.

Mr. Dalyell: Supposing one found a pure peer, how long would he remain pure? By his very actions he would become controversial.

Mr. Taylor: That is the problem. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said "Let's do the same as the Church of Scotland." The Lord High Commissioner in the Church of Scotland has a far different job to do. He does not decide whether the Church of Scotland General Assembly shall meet this year or next year, or whether an election for the Moderator shall be held this year or next month. He does not look at the wind, rain or Gallup Poll and decide. His is a far more limited job. Few people can do as he does, paying a courtesy call to

the Free Church General Assembly and the Church of Scotland General Assembly and being friendly with both. According to the hon. Gentleman, the Queen in Council will appoint this non-controver-sial person. That is not what I would suggest. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman gave no indication of the kind of person he had in mind.
The hon. Gentleman should be honest and tell us the purpose of this amendment. It is a paving amendment for his later amendments to take the Secretary of State entirely out of Scottish Assembly business, to have it as a self-governing and, I believe, self-financing Assembly. That is the kind of Parliament that the hon. Gentleman wants. If he had been clearer about what he intended—if he had said what his amendment was all about—we could have thrown it out in five minutes, but he tried to cover it with confusion, with lots of ideas that had nothing to do with the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman's real problem is that he has supported all kinds of new Parliaments. There was no more enthusiastic supporter of the European Parliament and direct elections, or of the idea of a Scottish Assembly. The hon. Gentleman will keep on proposing the creation of new Parliaments until he can find one in which his talents will be more appreciated than they are here. His amendment is dangerous and divisive. It will create friction, not abolish it. It is the kind of amendment that we should be careful about accepting in what is already a divisive Bill.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milian): In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said that when the original White Paper on the devolution proposals was published there was a great deal of argument in Scotland about the rôle of the Secretary of State in relation to the Assembly. Although I agree with him on that, I do not recollect that that argument had much to do with the kind of matters covered in the amendments.
But it is true that between the two White Papers the Government made certain changes in the proposals for the Secretary of State's rôle after devolution. We shall later come to some of those important matters, such as the


Secretary of State's rôle in regard to Asembly Bills where there is a question of the vires of Bills or where there may be disagreements about compulsion and so on. Even on those matters there was certainly never any question, as far as I am aware, of any strong body of opinion in Scotland or anywhere else that we should solve any of these problems, if they are serious problems, by removing the Secretary of State and appointing a Commissioner of the sort recommended in the amendment.
I shall argue later that it is not true that we are dealing only with formal matters. But on the argument about friction it seems to me extraordinary that we should remove the Secretary of State from what are by definition formal matters but leave him involved in what are undoubtedly political matters, and potentially matters of friction, pretending that in doing so we should somehow remove a genuine or serious source of friction between the Secretary of State and the Assembly. It was odd to hear my hon. Friend argue that by removing some of the formal functions of the Secretary of State there would be a considerable gain in improving the general relationship between the Secretary of State and the Assembly.
I shall argue later that the particular matters covered by this series of amendments do have important political aspects. They are not purely formal or nonpolitical. But before coming to that, I want to refer to the Commissioner and to who should appoint him. Although, according to the amendment, the appointment would formally be made by the Queen, my hon. Friend recognised the reality of the situation because he said that the appointment would, in fact, be made by the Government. Of course, if one were to have such a Commissioner the appointment would be made by the Monarch on the advice of the Westminster Government. That alone would pose considerable difficulties if it were intended that the person appointed should be, by definition, completely impartial and non-political.
But there would be other difficulties in finding such an impartial and nonpolitical person. Nothing that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian or by those supporting

him was in the least bit convincing or persuasive as to how we could find someone who could fulfil the rôle provided for in the amendments. Even if we could find such a person there would be the question of upon whose advice he would act. This, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members, is one of the key questions that would arise if this group of amendments were accepted. If the Commissioner acted on the advice of the Assembly or the Scottish or Welsh Executives, that would be giving considerably increased powers to the Executives or to the Assemblies that would be more consistent with a federal arrangement or some other arrangement that would go beyond the devolutionary proposals of the Bill. I could not accept such a suggestion any more than the Government will be able to accept later amendments that would give an independent right of decision making about the dates of Assembly elections.
If, on the other hand, the Commissioner acted on the advice of the United Kingdom Government, one wonders whether there would be any substantial difference between having a Commissioner and allowing the Secretary of State to exercise the rôle at present provided for him in the Bill. Of course, if the unfortunate Commissioner had to take advice from both the Assembly and the Government and if he received conflicting advice, then, even if the matters involved were strictly formal, he would become involved in political controversy. It seems that the arguments in favour of appointing an independent Commissioner do not stand serious examination.
It is even worse than that. Although one hopes that many of the matters will not be politically controversial, there will be a considerable element of party politics about them. The date of the first election might be the subject of acute political controversy. I believe that that will not be so because the date will be related to the practicalities of holding the first election at a time of year that will be convenient for electioneering.
10.15 p.m.
The matters dealt with in subsection (2) could be acutely controversial if the Secretary of State—in this instance, the


Commissioner if the amendment were accepted—exercised the power to vary the date of an election for whatever reason. That subsection is in the clause for good, practical reasons which are related to the United Kingdom Government's interest in a number of matters, including the possibility of a General Election in the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, by definition, matters of potential political controversy are involved in subsection (2).
Moving through the other clauses to which the amendments relate. one can again see that, although it may be argued that on particular aspects we are dealing with a comparatively formal kind of procedure, considerable political elements are involved. It is completely fallacious and misleading to believe that any of the matters dealt with in this group of amendments could be divorced altogether from political controversy.
I do not believe that we could have a non-political Commissioner who would be able to act in such an area in a nonpolitical way. It seems to me to be utterly fallacious. For that reason alone, I do not believe that these amendments should be accepted.
The fact is that the two Secretaries of State exist. Under the provisions of the Bill, they are to have a continuing rôle in the post-devolution situation. As a matter of practical convenience as well as political reality, the person to exercise the functions under Clause 3—we can argue later whether these functions are adequately or sufficiently defined—is the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Wales. It seems completely unnecessary to appoint some other individual to exercise functions which can be more effectively, satisfactorily and adequately dealt with by the respective Secretaries of State.
There is one other point which I want to make about the rôle of the Secretary of

State in this matter. If the Commissioner were appointed and if the rest of the clause stood as it is now—my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian has not suggested further amendments to it—he would be acting by order, and by order under subsection (4) which is subject to the parliamentary procedure.

It is a nonsense to believe that we could have an independent Commissioner who could, by order, be subject to the parliamentary procedure. Who would defend his actions in the House of Commons? Who would speak to the order? Who would deal with the practicalities of it in the House?

If we maintain a Secretary of State and readily admit that there are political aspects in the actions which have to be taken by him, it is proper—the Government would argue that it is highly desirable and necessary—that the actions of the Secretary of State, which will have political elements in them, should and can be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. That is why we have subsection (4) in Clause 3 and similar subsections in other clauses dealt with by this series of amendments.

By retaining the Secretary of State, we provide an opportunity not only for parliamentary control but for Parliament to attempt to make sure that he acts not in a wholly capricious way, nor in a way which is motivated by party political advantage, but in a way which has some regard to the realities of the situation and to the interests of the Assembly and the Scottish Executive itself.

For these various reasons, because I do not believe that the argument for the amendment has been made out, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 293.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Beith, A. J.
Kilfedder, James
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Crawford, Douglas
MacCormick, lain
Thompson, George


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Pardoe, John
Watt, Hamish


Freud, Clement
Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Andrew


Grimond, Rt Hon J,
Reid, George



Henderson, Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hooson, Emlyn
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Sillars, James
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Allaun, Frank
Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Archer, Peter
Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Magee, Bryan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mahon, Simon


Atkinson, Norman
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bean, R. E.
Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bell, Ronald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mawby, Ray


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Gould, Bryan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Graham, Ted
Molloy, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molyneaux, James


Brotherton, Michael
Grant, John (Islington C)
Morgan, Geraint


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grist, Ian
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Buchanan, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Budgen, Nick
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Noble, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Carson, John
Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice


Carter, Ray
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Ovenden, John


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Padley, Walter


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pendry, Tom


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cowans, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kinnock, Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Duffy. A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunlop, John
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Ellis, Tom (W exham)
McCusker, H.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank
Spence, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stallard, A. W.







Stanbrook, Ivor
Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stoddart, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stott, Roger
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weetch, Ken
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Weitzman, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wellbeloved, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)



Tierney, Sydney
White, James (Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Alf, Bates and


Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William
Mr. Peter Snape.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 575, in page 2, line 13, after "State", insert
provided that if a Speaker's Conference appointed in accordance with the provisions of section (Speaker's Conference) of this Act has made any recommendation before 1st January 1978, no day earlier than days after the acceptance or rejection of such recommendation by resolution of the House of Commons shall be so appointed".

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we are to take the following:

New Clause 36

SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

"(1) For the purposes of this Act there may be appointed a Speaker's Conference, being a conference convened at the request of the Prime Minister and presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons with the function of considering and making recommendations to the House of Commons relating to the appropriate number of Members of that House representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies after the enactment of this Act.

(2) Those participating in the conference shall be Members of the House of Commons invited to do so by the Speaker, who shall secure that the balance of parties in the House of Commons is reflected, so far as practicable, among the participants in the conference".

Mr. Pym: I think that the House is grateful for what the Chair ruled in connection with the amendment tabled to New Clause 36 in the names of Liberal Members. I should have liked all the amendments relating to this subject to be included in this group, but naturally I appreciate, Sir Myer, that it was not possible for you to select them all, for various reasons. I should have liked to include in New Clause 36 the appropriate number of Members for all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, but I appreciate that there would have been problems had I sought to do that.
I regret that we are embarking on what I regard as a major debate at so late an hour. We are about to debate the representation at Westminster of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom—a matter of primary and fundamental significance to this Committee. Indeed, it is perhaps one of the most dramatic aspects of the Bill and could in the long run be the most important of all the

basic issues that the Bill raises. I should have liked us to embark on it at a reasonable hour.
If anything like the Bill is ever to become law—and it is a radical measure —the consequences and implications for the House of Commons and for the government of the United Kingdom will be very great. I am surprised that the Government have had so little to say about it so far, I do not know whether they were hoping that this problem would not be raised or that they could get away without proposing or making any changes. At any rate, it is high time that the Committee considered this major matter, and Clause 3 is the first opportunity to do so.
Even without the Bill, there is a case for a review of the representation in the House of Commons. The question is whether the present imbalance among the constituent parts of the United Kingdom is justified. Apart from views expressed by hon. Members, the Hansard Society in its report on electoral reform refers to the matter. In paragraph 44, it says:
We consider that, whether or not the system of election to Westminster is changed, the Boundary Commission should be instructed to treat the whole country on the same basis.
Many arguments can be adduced about that proposition, but much depends on the context in which one advances it. My noble Friend Lord Home and his Committee in 1970 came down against any change, but they made that recommendation in the context of a proposed Assembly which was part of Westminster—an entirely different context from what is in the Bill.
Whatever view one takes of what one might describe as the purist argument for a greater degree of fair proportionality among the various parts of the United Kingdom, the case for a review of representation in the context of the Bill is unanswerable because the Bill changes the government of the United Kingdom. It seeks to change the responsibilities and functions of Members of Parliament because it seeks to remove from this House the responsibility for taking certain decisions and to pass it to separate Executives in Scotland and Wales—by a different method in each case, but that is by the way.
The very fact that the Bill seeks to remove certain functions and responsibilities to Assemblies affects not only Members of Parliament for Scotland and Wales but also for England and Northern Ireland and therefore for the United Kingdom as a whole. Under the Bill, those effects and consequences cannot be avoided or brushed aside. All the implications must be faced and argued out.
Even if at the end of the day the Committee were to conclude that everything should be left as it is, they must be argued out, as they were on a previous occasion.
Throughout the immense debates on Ireland and Home Rule, representation at Westminster was a continuing issue of high controversy. Those debates are highly relevant to what is proposed in the Bill. As I said earlier, I should have included that in the amendment if I had thought it had been in order.
In the end, as we know, the Government of Ireland Act specified and laid down what the representation was to be —namely, 12 seats for Northern Ireland and one for the university. As we also know, the university seat was later abolished. That was the representation that was decided upon in the light of the new devolved Assembly at Stormont. It took into account the altered responsibilities for the House of Commons and for the Assembly at Stormont. Those constituencies have endured with a general public acceptance that has not often been questioned during the past 55 years.
It should be noted at this stage that the 12 Members representing the Northern Ireland seats had the same rights and responsibilities in this House of Commons as every other Member. Northern Ireland representation today is not directly appropriate and fair because Stormont is not in existence. There is a period of what is described as direct rule. We do not know whether Stormont or the equivalent will be restored to Northern Ireland. We do not know whether there will be devolved powers again. It seems at the moment that there is little or no Government policy in that direction. But either way representation in Northern Ireland should be reconsidered.
If there is no Stormont and if we are to have the present situation for any prolonged period, no one can pretend

that the representation of Northern Ireland is fair, reasonable or adequate. On the other hand, if devolved Government is again restored to Northern Ireland, the matter will have to be considered anew. That is because if the Bill were to become an Act there would be devolved powers, to some extent, to Scotland and Wales, though on a different basis. Surely the representation of the three parts of the United Kingdom and England should be considered together and as a whole.
Is it possible in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill, and would it be right, to leave unchanged the so-called overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales and the relative under-representation of England and Northern Ireland? The Royal Commission thought not. The majority was for parity with England, or at any rate for a basis that treated the various parts of the United Kingdom on the same basis in proportion to the population. That was its recommendation in paragraph 1147. The matter is also covered by Amendment No. 484, that has not been selected, that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan).
The House of Commons should take on board what parity means. The arguments for and against must be considered. Given the same total number of seats for England, Scotland and Wales, it would mean 16 extra seats in England, 12 fewer in Scotland and four fewer in Wales. If the parity argument were to hold sway and to find favour, that would be a great change. But there are other factors besides such as geographical factors. We cannot consider only the widely scattered mountainous areas in Scotland and Wales such as Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty or Merioneth, where clearly special circumstances exist. We must also consider distance from London. It is not a matter of straightforward arithmetic. There are practical considerations to which the House of Commons has always paid attention and I am sure that it would wish to do so again.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two smallest seats in England are those wild and rural areas of


Birmingham, Ladywood and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central?

Mr. Pym: I am coming to the urban seats, although it is fair to say that Western Isles has an electorate of only 22,470. We must consider geographical aspects, but what is the justification for keeping a large number of urban seats well below the average electorally? There may be a good reason for it, but it does not seem to be fair. I am certain that the House should look at it.
10.45 p.m.
Because powers will have been devolved, there is an argument for going beyond parity, which is what happened in the case of Northern Ireland. I see many objections and difficulties about that, and I doubt whether it would be acceptable or wise. But it is clear from what I have said that, between the existing level of representation and a less-than-parity position, there is a wide range of possibilities, including an increase in English representation. That is another alternative way of handling it. The question is how and when are we going to decide what is the best form of representation.
I do not believe that the Committee stage of this Bill is the right method or the right forum for doing it. It is clearly a highly complicated and complex matter, and a great deal of preparation would be required before we could take a proper decision.
In the first place, there is no mention of representation in the Bill. Already we have had—indeed, even before the Second Reading debate had finished—one major change, the big addition in the form of the proposed referendum, and I doubt whether the Government are now going to bring forward new provisions reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland or Wales. If they did, they would show themselves to be fairly desperate, and whom they would be buying and at what price would be the subject of speculation. But we have no indication that they will propose any such thing, although there is much speculation about the price they may have to pay for the guillotine which they are alleged to require.
I notice that the Under Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday that he

did not expect the Government to impose a straight guillotine. That is good news, unless it implies that they are going to introduce a crooked one or a serrated one —a horrifying thought. But he added that they would instead introduce a timetable motion which would allow full debate within a specified schedule. I look forward to someone defending the difference between a straight guillotine and a timetable motion which would allow full debate within a specified schedule.
I do not think that the Government will bring forward major new proposals, but I may be wrong. We shall see later tonight. Apart from the Royal Commission's Report, there has been no general public consideration of this matter or any debate in the House on the issues involved. This is the first occasion, and many arguments and proposals will be adduced in the debate.
I think that the House would be greatly assisted if documents were produced setting out the considerations which are involved and identifying the options and the expected consequence of each. In our opinion, this is best done by a conference, convened on the Prime Minister's initiative and presided over by Mr. Speaker. In the end, the House will decide by resolution what is to happen, but it would be greatly helped if the preparatory work for that decision was done as I suggest.
The purpose of the amendment is in no way to cause undue or unnecessary delay. That is not necessary. It is a sincere attempt to propose what is the best way of dealing with an extremely important matter, because it is a major issue that cannot be brushed aside, and one of the most fundamental that we are facing. The issues which are raised and cannot be avoided include, amongst other things, the role of Members of Parliament. Are all hon. Members of this House, if the Bill becomes an Act, going to vote on all matters, as has happened previously, when there will be some matters devolved to Scotland upon which hon. Members will not be able to vote? New Clauses 35 and 37 refer to this aspect.
If there were a system whereby hon. Members of this House were not allowed to vote on certain matters, one can


imagine the objections and points of order that would follow and the scope there would be for dispute. The idea of two tiers or classes of Members would be something that would lead to a great deal of controversy. It is a possibility that has to be considered. It would be a major departure—

Mr. Dalyell: As a former Government Chief Whip, can the right hon. Gentleman picture the kind of discussions he might have had through the usual channels with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) on who could vote and who could not vote? Would that not have been rather picturesque?

Mr. Pym: If I was doing it with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) it is probable that we would have come to an agreement. But perhaps that is a matter of history.
The role of hon. Members is crucial because upon the role depends to a great extent the number of hon. Members that would be appropriate for each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. In addition, there are geographical and what I might describe as nationality factors, and underlying all is the unity of the United Kingdom. We must think of the appropriate number of Members in that context.
No doubt the unfairness of the existing representation will be rehearsed as the debate goes on, as it needs to be. The contrast within the United Kingdom of the representation as between various parts of the United Kingdom is startling but it has worked for decades and centuries with adjustment from time to time.
The Bill seeks to change all the circumstances surrounding the very way in which this Parliament, and its representation, has worked so well. One of our main criticisms of the Bill is that without thinking through all the consequences it proposes to make a radical alternation in the government of the British Isles and in particular in the functions of hon. Members of this House. It is inconceivable that this should happen without the implications for the membership of this House being fully considered and decided upon. It is right that we should start to consider at this stage of the Bill

this major fundamental issue to which I am certain we shall have to return.
I hope that I have made out the case for suggesting that we should begin by calling a conference on the basis that I propose so that we can begin work on seeing what would be the most fair, appropriate, workable and enduring method of ensuring the future power, strength and wellbeing of this House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): No one would dispute that the issues to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are major issues. I would certainly like to comment on what he has said. In intervening at this stage I am not imagining that I am bringing the debate to a close, optimistic though I normally am.
I thought it might be helpful to hon. Members in various parts of the House if, at a fairly early stage in the debate, I were to state the Government's attitude to the amendment and to the general issues at stake. We can then have further discussion and, perhaps, there might be the possibility of my intervening again later.
One major issue which is bound to be involved in any question of altering the relationship between different parts of the United Kingdom is the role of Members of Parliament. I have always taken the view that, whatever changes we made and whatever might be required for any form of devolution or alteration in our relations with Northern Ireland or in any other way, one solution which had to be ruled out was the idea of "in and out" Members of the House of Commons, partly for the reasons which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) elaborated. I do not believe that the future of Governments and the future acceptance of majority decisions in the House and in the country at large could depend upon disputed arguments at the last moment about which Members were entitled to vote on which matters. That one reason alone is sufficient to destroy any possibility of our being able to solve these problems by the "in and out" membership of the House of Commons or by having Members with first-class and second-class rights. I do not think that that is a possible solution. We should


always start from the understanding that that is ruled out.
That also derives from the experience of the Home Rule Bills in the 1880s and 1890s, to which there have been references in different contexts in some of our discussions. Parliament had the same experience then, and I hope that I do not embarrass the Liberal Party by saying that Mr. Gladstone applied his formidable powers of intellect to this problem. He and the Liberal Party started off on the basis that there might be a differentiation between Members of Parliament in this way. But they came to the conclusion in the end that that was an impossibility. That was the verdict which they reached in 1893 when they had the Home Rule Bill, and that was the verdict again in 1914 when other Home Rule Bills were introduced. They agreed then that there could be no first-class and second-class membership of the House of Commons. I think that we should all start from that proposition.
The right hon. Member for Cambridge-shire said that the major issues to which he referred were not proper matters to be settled in the Committee stage of this Bill. I accept that that is the situation. That is one, though not the only, reason why I ask the Committee to reject his amendment and the thinking or theme behind it and the new clause. I believe that both should be ruled out on that account. I agree that the question of membership of this House is not, in the terms in which we are describing it and in the terms which hitherto have been settled by the Speaker's Conference, a proper matter to be settled in the Committee stage of a Bill of this character.
Let us consider this pair of related proposals—Amendment No. 575 and New Clause 36—from the technical and practical standpoint. After all, this Committee is asked to make law in a technically and practically sound fashion. But, in saying that, I hope that the Committee will understand that I shall be coming to the larger considerations to which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred and which the House naturally wishes us to consider before we proceed with the Bill.
I deal first with Amendment No. 575. To my mind, it is an odd procedure—

and I am not aware of a single precedent—to treat the setting up of a Speaker's Conference as a matter for legislation. The custom is and always has been to regard the establishment of such a Conference and the framing of its agenda as a matter of agreement between the parties. To determine the internal business of this House by an Act of Parliament, that is, by legislative process involving both Houses, is an odd, and to my mind, objectionable way of proceeding.
11.0 p.m.
I invite the attention of the House to the crucial word "may" in the first line of New Clause 36. The provision is permissive, not mandatory. But the setting up of a Speaker's Conference requires no statutory enablement; and the word "may" in such a context imports no statutory requirement. Therefore, New Clause 36 is pointless in strict terms, because it achieves nothing.
Subsection (1) of New Clause 36 makes clear that the conference it contemplates would be directed to consider Scottish and Welsh representation, and not that of England or Northern Ireland. That is quite contrary to the claims which the right hon. Member for Ca0mbridgeshire made for his proposals in a speech last Sunday. In his remarks today he said that Northern Ireland could be considered in another context. I am not saying that he is neglecting it, but it cannot be done in his amendment.
What this amendment does is ask the conference to look not at the balance of representation in the United Kingdom as a whole, but at the artificially restricted subject of Scotland and Wales in isolation. As the new clause stands, the conference is precluded from considering adjustments in English and Northern Irish representation. It would be a half-baked affair, and indeed worse than that. It might be virtually impossible to look at the picture in the round for many years ahead, because it would be hard to open the subject later in a new conference while any recommendations for change from the first conference were still in the process of being carried into effect.
Amendment No. 575 attempts to bind together the work of the conference and the implementation of the Scotland and Wales Act. This combination is a strange


business not only in principle but in practice also. In principle there is no reason in logic why devolution should prejudice the outcome of any conference, or why the outcome of any conference should prejudice the fulfilment of devolution. Tying them together is an attempt to get this representation issue debated earlier by tagging it on to an early clause of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] That is perfectly correct. What the Committee must consider is the effect of passing the amendment which the right hon. Member has presented.

Mr. Peter Rees: Before the Lord President leaves these narrow aspects, and in view of what he said about English and Ulster representation, would he tell us whether the Long Title of the Bill was drawn so narrowly so that we cannot raise these issues?

Mr. Foot: That is not implied at all. But in considering this amendment the Committee must take account of its effect. This is one of the considerations the Committee must weigh in deciding what to do with this proposition.
If the arbitrary date of 1st January 1978 is not a logical reality, then no recommendation for change consequent upon devolution can be reasonably known until it is known whether devolution is to be implemented—that is, until the referendums have been held. It is apparent to the House, as it is to the Government, that referendums, following Royal Assent to the Bill, can scarcely come earlier than October or November. Is it seriously considered that a Speaker's Conference should thrash out properly-considered views about this complex matter of representation between then and Christmas? If, as surely would be the case in practice, the timing condition of Amendment No. 575 had to lapse, New Clause 36 would be even more up in the air than it is already.

Mr. Cormack: The Leader of the House is obviously desperately unhappy. In the past he acquired a reputation for having a feeling for the constitution. Here he is reading a turgid brief with which he does not agree. Will he accept the logic of the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and will he accept that what the Government are proposing in this

hotch-potch of a Bill is the total destruction of the constitution as we understand it? Why does he not throw away his brief and argue the case?

Mr. Pym: Before the Leader of the House replies to that point may I say that he has answered some detailed points but that what he has said to the House is not worthy either of him or the issues? After all, he is responsible for the Bill. He drafted it. We all know of the limitations imposed upon anyone who wants to table an amendment to any matter in a Bill. The extent to which it is possible to put down amendments is governed by the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman has designed. We have criticised the Bill on major aspects. We have objected to having one Bill instead of two, and we have objected to other features. It is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman to make these laboured points when we are dealing with something as tremendous and dramatic as representation at the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman must understand—and it has been my understanding of the House of Commons—that first we must direct our attention to the precise meaning of any amendment that is tabled. If we were to carry his amendment it would have the consequence, which maybe he and most hon. Members would not feel was justified, of constricting what would be considered by such a Speaker's Conference.
Secondly, the date that he has written into his amendment would be open to all the objections that I have described. Therefore, even on these technical grounds I say that there is no justification for the House being prepared to accept the amendment. Even if we accepted that the right hon. Gentleman had good grounds for the amendment, it would not be open to the House of Commons, if it were to do its job properly, to accept the amendment.
However, we object to the amendment on larger grounds. We object to it on the ground, as we stated from the beginning of the discussions on the Bill, that we do not believe that representation in this House should be altered by the Bill. That was stated by the Government in the White Paper and by Ministers who have put the case in our debates. In our


earlier debates my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), when Secretary of State for Scotland, emphasised that from the beginning. That is the Government's position today.
We do not believe that it is desirable or necessary that representation in this House, either from Scotland or from Wales, should be altered in association with this Bill. Anyone considering the details and the evidence will see that there is perhaps very little ground for any suggestion that there should be alterations. The Leader of the Opposition has urged on a number of occasions that there should be a Speaker's Conference to discuss these matters, quite irrespective of devolution. She has argued that the figures are such that we should be prepared to alter representation in this House, whether or not we were proceeding with this Bill. Presumably that is her claim whether or not the Bill gets through.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that in the event of the Bill's becoming law the Leader of the Opposition will have an argument for her point of view that she has never had before, and a substance to her views that she could never have claimed before, since there was no duality of representation before the prospect of devolution?

Mr. Foot: I do not agree. I do not believe that the proposal for devolution alters the arguments about representation here. The arguments for sustaining the present representation in the House should stand. I do not accept my hon. Friend's view that if we were to pass this measure we should therefore in some way be committed to proceeding to a Speaker's Conference. On this issue my hon. Friend and I are probably more in agreement than we may be on other parts of the Bill. But I entirely reject the suggestion that the passing of the Bill should in any way alter the argument about what should be the representation in the House.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that on this matter many of us who are critics of the Bill are with him. But will he tell the Committee that we shall not get into the situation that used to exist in relation to Northern Ireland when Stormont was in being, when

Members who represented other parts of the United Kingdom, and even Stormont Members here, could not discuss Northern Ireland affairs? It would be ludicrous if 70 Scottish Members, a certain number of Welsh Members, and all the English Members were unable to discuss matters concerning Scotland or Wales. If that is the position, my right hon. Friend is handing the case to the Opposition.

Mr. Foot: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and that was my view during the whole period of Stormont. I and some other hon. Members who used to sit below the Gangway were among the few who were determined to raise Northern Ireland questions and exercised our right to do so. We insisted on it throughout that period.
The Government and I are opposed to the creation—or re-creation, if it ever applied to Stormont, although I did not apply it to Stormont—of any first-class or second-class Members, that is, Members who are entitled to engage in some business of the House but not in other business. We are utterly opposed to any such arrangement. Some of us were always opposed to it as it applied to Stormont, too.

Mr. Raison: Will the Lord President go further than he has just gone and confirm that under the Bill any Member, whether English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh, can continue to legislate about devolved matters, that Private Members' Bills about Scottish health, housing, education and so on can be introduced by any hon. Member? Will he further confirm that those executive powers that are apparently handed over to the Scottish Executive can continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State, that the scheme put forward is one of concurrent powers, and is the most complete nonsense anybody ever heard?

Mr. Foot: This Parliament will retain unabated responsibility for defence; security; police— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am answering the point—the management of the


economy, including pay policy and other aspects of counter-inflation policy; social security; energy, including North Sea oil; a host of other matters; and the reserve powers provided for under the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
In the face of those facts—those are the facts under the Bill—full representation of Scotland and of Wales in this Parliament certainly deserves to be sustained. Major matters will still be matters of common interest to all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. Foot: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again later. I believe that, for the preservation of those immense powers for that whole range of what will happen in the United Kingdom, we are entitled to sustain the representation from Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons.

Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked about the powers of the House of Commons to legislate on devolved matters in Scotland and the powers of the Secretary of State over devolved matters in Scotland. Will he answer that question?

Mr. Foot: Several of those matters and the question of the relationship of the House of Commons to devolved matters, the override, and the reserve powers, are matters which we shall be debating— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All these are matters which we shall be debating as the Bill proceeds. I say to the hon. Gentleman—[H o N. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—that when this Parliament retains full powers to deal with all the matters which I have cited, there is an equally good claim for sustaining the rights of representatives from Scotland, Wales, and the whole of the United Kingdom to deal with them.

Mr. Leo Abse: I am naturally anxious to vote against this amendment, because I do not want the constituencies of my right hon. Friend, myself or any of my Welsh colleagues to be liquidated. But will my right hon. Friend explain, not merely by making incantatory statements, what I am still seeking to understand—namely, why in his view it is necessary for Welsh and

Scottish MPs to remain here in the same numbers? Will he explain how I am to meet what otherwise would seem to be inexorable logic—namely, that if I vote for the Bill, I shall be divesting myself of half my work—indeed, with a new town in my constituency, perhaps more than half—but will have the right to interfere with the work of other Members representing English constituencies, and to deny them any right to have genuine surveillance over the whole area?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend, who has brought to our attention during the debates on the Bill the fact that he has a different view from us, raises the whole question whether there should be any devolution of powers at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly my hon. Friend gives a complete misrepresentation of the apportionment of powers between the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly. There is a difference between the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, but the difference is part of the argument. My hon. Friend gives a false picture when he describes the transfer of such responsibilities to the Welsh Assembly. Of course important functions are transferred, but important functions are retained in the House of Commons. It is because we are determined to carry through the double proposition of recurring an extensive devolution of powers and at the same time of retaining the supremacy of the House of Commons that we shall carry it out in this way.
I say to my hon. Friend—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Foot: I shall give way in a moment. I say to my hon. Friend, who is so eager to vote with us at the end of the debate, that he need have no fears about this matter. When he votes with us, he will be helping to sustain the full representation of Wales in the House of Commons. That is what we seek to do. But he will also be seeking to secure a Welsh Assembly which will have greater powers to deal with many of these other matters. The same applies to Scotland.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: rose—

Mr. Foot: I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to propose any alteration in representation.


I think that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire acknowledged that it would be an absurdity—indeed, it would be a defiance of the whole of our past practice—for the House of Commons to try to deal with the question of representation here in a Bill of this nature.
I say, in order that the matter may be absolutely clear—and I say it also to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, because she has had a considerable amount of correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this subject—that we do not believe that there is any case arising from the Bill or from any other circumstances of the present time for having alterations in the representation in this House.
Therefore we hold to the present representation and we believe that when these matters are looked at properly, and when one sees what considerations were involved in the historical context of the last Speaker's Conference at the end of the war, or any earlier Speaker's Conference, it will be seen that the considerations why there should be such representation for Scotland and Wales still stand. That is the Government's view. That is why we are not only opposed to dealing with the proposition in this Bill—I am glad to have the concurrence of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire about that—but we are opposed to raising this matter in a Speaker's Conference. That is not the proper way to do it.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that even those of us who wish to see devolution established find his present argument incredible and indefensible? Is he seriously suggesting that it would provide a stable position for the future if 107 Scottish and Welsh Members were not merely able to vote but occasionally to decide matters of purely domestic English interest? Does he suggest that such a system would guarantee a stable United Kingdom?

Mr. Foot: I believe that the more the House applies itself to what is in the Bill, the more it will conclude that this is the best way of keeping the United Kingdom together, and that the people of Scotland and Wales will also agree when they vote in the referendum.
I have been asked whether the same situation applies in Northern Ireland. Different considerations apply there—

Sir Nigel Fisher: I do not in any way wish to be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great parliamentary admiration, but this is the most cynical speech I have heard for years in this place. Could not the Leader of the House be honest and admit to the Committee that the real reason for retaining the present representation is that his party and his Government cannot do without it because they depend for their majority here on the Scottish and Welsh seats?

Mr. Foot: I know that that is the familiar slogan of Conservative Party propaganda, and that that is the way in which they seek to present the case. But it is certainly not the same case which appealed to previous Speaker's Conferences which examined the matter and which also agreed that there should be a higher proportion of Members coming from Scotland and a lesser proportion coming from Wales. That was the decision in circumstances not so very different from those of the Speaker's Conference at the end of the war.
I know that some hon. Members think that devolution alters the situation, but that is not the case of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who has been arguing that we should refer the matter to the Speaker's Conference not because of anything to do with devolution but because she wants to alter the kind of basis on which the last Speaker's Conference reached these conclusions.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what previous Speaker's Conference the representation of Scotland has been considered in the context of devolution?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has not followed what has been said. What I said was that a previous Speaker's Conference, which considered these different figures at the end of the war—when he had roughly the same kind of proportions—reached the conclusion that there should be a somewhat higher representation from Scotland and in lesser degree a slightly higher representation


from Wales. It reached those conclusions partly because of the way in which it believed that representation contributed to the maintenance of the United Kingdom. We believe that those good reasons still hold.
The case of Northern Ireland is in some degree different since the numbers were reduced because a settlement was made, which was partially carried out, and which has now been almost entirely revoked. I fully acknowledge that there is a different situation in Northern Ireland, although those who have followed these matters carefully will have seen that what the Government have said is that any reconsideration of the Northern Ireland situation has to take into account other factors concerned with Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman refers to "other factors". Surely the only factor which the Government and the House of Commons have to take into account is that Northern Ireland is not properly represented in the House, that the people of Northern Ireland have not got the democratic rights which they should have as citizens of the United Kingdom. This Government ought now to increase the number of Northern Ireland Members.

Mr. Foot: I understand that the hon. Gentleman puts that case, as do many of his colleagues from Northern Ireland. There are many others in the House who sympathise with him. There are other factors involved in solving the problem—[Hon. Members: "What are they?"] Anyone who has studied the situation in Northern Ireland knows that there are other considerations which enter into the discusion. There is the whole question of how a new, devolved administration of some form or another, is to be re-established in Northern Ireland. There are some considerations which apply in Northern Ireland but do not apply to the same degree to other places. Anyone who is serious about the proposition must accept that.

Mr. Ridley: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it might look better from the point of view of the Labour Party if he were to accept parity of treatment for the whole of the United Kingdom and then take a leaf from Mrs.

Ghandi's book and put the Opposition in prison?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is out of date on that matter as on others.
What the Committee has been proposing, and what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has proposed in an amendment, is that there should be some form of electoral quota. That is certainly not a proposition that has been accepted by Speakers' Conferences. I do not believe that it should be accepted by the Committee.

Mr. David Steel: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman was trying to persuade us that the representation of Scotland and Wales here should not be under consideration because it was not affected by devolution. Now he is trying to tell us that Northern Ireland should be left alone because it cannot be considered except in the context of devolution.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents the situation. I would have thought that he and other members of the Liberal Party who have studied what has happened in Northern Ireland would accept that there are different considerations there affecting how we might set about finding a solution. When I say that we do not believe that these matters can be solved in the context of the Bill and that we are opposed to their being sent to a Speaker's Conference at present, that does not mean that we do not believe that we should not at some time give consideration to the question of Northern Ireland.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman, of all people in this House, saying that consideration can duly and properly be given to the problems and circumstances of Northern Ireland when Northern Ireland is not fully and fairly represented in this House of Commons? Surely, he of all people cannot say that.

Mr. Foot: I was saying that whereas I believe that the question of representation in this House cannot be dealt with in the Bill—and most hon. Members are agreed about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) agreed to that.


In my view, and in that of the Government, there should not be any reference to a Speaker's Conference in this respect at the present time, for the reasons that I have given.
I went on to say—and this is fully understoood by all those who follow the issue—that there is a case in Northern Ireland, not necessarily for immediate treatment of this matter but for consideration in the light of reaching a general settlement in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Down, South says that he prefers the question of representation to be considered separately from any others. I understand that argument, but many other hon. Members wish to settle many of these matters at the same time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Leader of the House not take into account that when Stormont was functioning, even hon. Members from Northern Ireland were not in a position to put Questions that were relative to the powers devolved to that Parliament? Let us look a little closer. When the right hon. Friend of the Leader of the House was Secretary of State, some of us from Northern Ireland attempted to put Questions on the Order Paper which were relative to matters devolved to the Assembly in Northern Ireland but they were refused. We were told that these were matters for the Assembly. Does the right hon. Genleman not think that in the present situation Northern Ireland has a right to be represented in the only elected forum that it has—that is, this House?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that I have allowed generous references to the situation in Northern Ireland, but I cannot allow the debate to become substantially one on the situation in Northern Ireland. I simply wish to remind right hon. and hon. Members that we are discussing devolution for Scotland and Wales. The Leader of the House has already said that an opportunity may be given to discuss the peculiar situation in Northern Ireland. Frankly, I do not see how we can continue with this line of debate and utilise the time to discuss Northern Ireland. The Lord President.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I do not argue with your ruling but I should like clarification. How is it possible to discuss devolution in Scotland and Wales without any reference to what actually happened when Stormont was in existence, particularly whether hon. Members, once devolution is achieved, can ask Questions in the House about their constituencies in Scotland and Wales?

The First Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members will recollect that I have allowed generous references to the situation in Northern Ireland to allow illustration of the problems that will concern a Speaker's Conference. But we are now apparently debating the peculiar and particular problems of Northern Ireland. That is my interpretation of what is happening. That is my feeling. I am not ruling upon it. I am allowing the debate to continue. The terms of New Clause 36 deal specifically with the question of devolution for Scotland and Wales, and the spokesman for the Opposition acknowledged that. The ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means meant that general questions relating to Northern Ireland are in order.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I wonder whether I can help those English Members who are present. The Lord President has made it clear that there is to be no change in the representation of Scottish or Welsh Members in this House. He has made it clear that there is no question of a change into a system of first- and second-class Members of the House of Commons, in terms of debating or voting. In other words, he has made a clear case for a separate English Assembly and a Northern Ireland Assembly.
How can we debate this in terms of the Scotland and Wales Bill?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter for the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I want to put to you the fact that tonight we are discussing, under the new clause and the amendment, representation in this House. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I put it to you


that seeing that the Lord President has brought this question into his speech and the mover of the motion has done likewise, we are entitled to stand up for our part of the United Kingdom and see that we are properly represented.
If you gave a ruling—you have not given one, Sir Myer, but if you did—we would feel that we were second-class Members of Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I gave an Irish ruling. The point is that if the hon. Member can show me where the amendment and the clause that we are discussing have any reference to Northern Ireland I shall be obliged to him.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. You will have noticed that the amendment refers to the calling of a Speaker's Conference. A Speaker's Conference can discuss only matters of representation in this House in the context of the whole representation here. For example—as I am sure you would agree, Sir Myer—if a Speaker's Conference agreed that the representation from Scotland and Wales should be doubled, it would, of itself, affect the representation of England and Ulster. Therefore, it is quite clear that any discussion in a Speaker's Conference that would affect representation in this House of Scotland and Wales must, of itself, affect the representation in this House by Members from England and Ulster. Therefore, it would be completely impossible to carry on a debate on the amendment without discussing the matter of representation of England and Ulster.
The fact that Ulster is already under-represented, and that the Lord President has said that it is under-represented because it may have a devolved Parliament, introduces at once the fact that Scotland and Wales are over-represented, despite the fact that the Lord President wants to give them a devolved Parliament.

The First Deputy Chairman: I invite the attention of hon. Members to page 971 on the Amendment Paper. At the top they will see that the new clause refers to making recommendations
relating to the appropriate number of Members of that House representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies after the enactment of this Act.

That is precisely the reference made to the situation.

Mr. Pym: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. It is fair to say that, whereas I addressed most of my remarks to that point, I indicated that it seemed very difficult to exclude England and Northern Ireland from consideration, and that it seemed appropriate to make references to them in speeches. I did in my speech. I referred to the Government of Ireland Act 1920, in which the question of representation was laid down. I hope that your ruling, Sir Myer, does not in any way imply that references cannot be made to Northern Ireland and England, because such references are really necessary.

The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Minister misinterprets what I said. I said that general references to the situation there would be permissible, and I did not intervene in the right hon. Gentleman's speech or ask him to withdraw or ask him to restrain himself in his references. Provided references are made in the general context, everything is all right.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. New Clause 36 goes on to say that Mr. Speaker
shall secure that the balance of parties in the House of Commons is reflected, so far as practicable, among the participants in the conference.
It will not be without your memory, Sir Myer, that two of the parties in the House of Commons are the United Ulster Unionists and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), who is another party, and I suppose it is that to which the words "so far as practicable" refer. If the amendment refers to a whole political party, such as it does, surely it would be in order for that political party to express views about its representation in the House of Commons and its representation of Northern Ireland.

The First Deputy Chairman: My interpretation of subsection (2) is that it refers to the people who will serve on the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Foot: Despite all appearances to the contrary, Sir Myer, I do not think that any of us have offended against


your ruling, because I believe that it has been the case that, inevitably, right from what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said at the beginning of the debate, and throughout, references were bound to be made in this context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, to Northern Ireland, both as an example and in reference to what might happen elsewhere.
I only replied to the intervention on this matter. I was not at any stage suggesting that the representation of Northern Ireland should be sustained at the present level because of the possibility of the restoration of devolved powers there. I never suggested that. I was suggesting that there were different circumstances in Northern Ireland that might lead to a different context in which this question might be settled, and I think that this is a reasonable approach.
I am trying to indicate as clearly as possible that we do not believe that there is any case in general terms for the reference of the whole question of the representation in this House of Commons to a Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Lord President not be so mysterious about what these other factors are which affect representation in Ulster, other than the possibility of devolved power?

Mr. Foot: I have already referred to that matter. I am sure that the rest of the Committee understands the situation even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Julian Amery: From his long experience, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the House of Commons is very tolerant towards any Minister when he is putting a difficult point, especially one with which, perhaps, he does not altogether agree. However, we really cannot be satisfied until the right hon. Gentleman has answered the question originally put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. How is it possible to say that devolution makes no difference to representation where Scotland and Wales are concerned but that there are factors involving Northern Ireland which could affect representation? Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that the integrity and unity of the kingdom

is in question? If he is not, I cannot see what other issue there could be beyond the restoration of devolved government.

Mr. Foot: I do not want to traverse the whole argument that we have had about Northern Ireland. It would be extremely tedious for all concerned. I should have thought that the whole Committee understands, and that anyone who had applied his mind to questions in Northern Ireland understands, that there is an attempt in Northern Ireland to see how we may reinstitute institutions in Northern Ireland that can deal with the situation there. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has nothing to do with it."] Of course it has a great deal to do with it, because the kind of institutions that can be established there can help in solving the situation about representation here, too.
All that I was seeking to do, not as a major part of the debate but to give a major illustration of what we are doing, was to indicate that if we were to refuse, on the excellent grounds that we believe exist, to refer the whole question to a Speaker's Conference, there may be a case in certain circumstances whereby Northern Ireland representation has to be differently dealt with.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the Northern Ireland example, will the right hon. Gentleman just answer the point that there will be 107 Welsh and Scottish MPs in the House of Commons who will not be able to discuss matters which are dealt with by their own Assemblies yet who will be able to discuss matters which concern England alone? How can the balance of the United Kingdom be preserved in those circumstances?

Mr. Foot: I have been asked that question time and again—[HON. MEMBERS: "So answer it."] What I have argued and what I say again is that the matters which are retained in the control of this supreme House of Commons are all the stronger reason why we should retain full representation here from Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Cormack: The substance of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks seems to be that the possibility of devolution to


Ireland prevents the possibility of increasing its representation here but that the actuality of devolution to Scotland and Wales prevents the diminution of their representation.

Mr. Foot: I am saying nothing of the kind. I should have to restate everything I have already said to get the hon. Gentleman to understand it.
The Leader of the Liberal Party has been making some suggestions about what he hopes will be the outcome of some of the discussions on these matters. Of course I do not hold him responsible for what is printed in the Liberal News—

Mr. David Steel: indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: —and I hope that no one else will take it seriously either. I am gratified to have that repudiation in advance because I hope that no one else will be deceived by it either.
The Liberal News said:
Later in the week, David Steel had several private meetings with Mr. Foot, the Leader of the Commons"—
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be eager to repudiate the idea of our having several private meetings—
at the Government's request in order to hammer out the price for Liberal support.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the very first to repudiate any suggestion that that was what we talked about.

Mr. David Steel: indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: What we talked about was the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had delivered in the country, and we continued the argument on many of the questions which he had raised. I expressed to him my views on the subject —for example, on the whole question of tax powers, which we shall be debating later. These are questions which the House has to discuss. Certainly we sought to reach no bargain or agreement on that or any other subject—as the right hon. Gentleman now fully acknowledges. I am grateful to him for that because I am not sure whether this allegation would do him or me more damage.
I am glad that that matter is cleared up entirely. We have made no agreements, no bargains, no deals whatsoever on this matter. We have reached no agreement about it. What the Government

say to the Committee is that we believe that it is of paramount importance to the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom that the Bill should be translated to the statute book. We believe that in doing that we should sustain the full representation of Wales and Scotland in this United Kingdom House of Commons. We believe that that also is a contribution to our essential unity and to overcoming all our problems. It is on that basis that we ask the Committee to carry through this measure. It is on that basis that we believe that the Bill should go through, and we want no one to be under any misapprehension about it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Foot: I give way to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Pym: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in response to what I thought was a reasonable, rational, sensible and parliamentary proposal for discussing these difficult and controversial matters he has given the most opinionated and partisan reply? Does he accept that? The right hon. Gentleman has not been prepared to defend in argument the status quo, which is what he asserts will be best for the House of Commons. I predict that at the end of the debate there will be a great many right hon. and hon. Members who do not agree with what he has said. I hope he will realise that in addition to being the Leader of this Bill he is the Leader, for the time being, of the House of Commons.

Mr. Foot: Of course the right hon. Gentleman holds to the views that he expressed and I hold to mine. Although strong objection was taken, I indicated to the Committee that if we were to pass the amendment we should be in hopeless difficulties for all the technical reasons that I have described. That may well be extremely irritable to the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of his hon. Friends. They do not like the consequences of their own actions pointed out to them.
The right hon. Gentleman may describe this as opinionated or whatever, but I have indicated to the Committee the general principles on which we stand. We


are not prepared to see the United Kingdom Parliament torn to pieces. We believe that the propositions that come from the Leader of the Opposition would, if carried into effect, run the grave risk of tearing the United Kingdom apart. We also resist the amendment so as to sustain the essential centre of the Bill itself.

Sir Bernard Braine: This has been a sad experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has hitherto enjoyed a high reputation as a parliamentarian.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Not any more.

Sir B. Braine: He has enjoyed a reputation as a doughty fighter for the rights of Parliament and fair representation. Never before have I heard a single speech shatter a man's reputation as I have tonight. I suggest that he will live to regret his words.
We are only at the beginning of this controversy. It will take a long time but when the people of England wake up to what the Government are doing in their name, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will bitterly rue the day that he made such a speech. He knows that what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) went right to the heart of the whole controversy. That is because the amendment is concerned with fair representation.
For many years I sat in the House of Commons representing a constituency of near and then over 100,000 electors when there were many Members, mostly on the Labour Benches, who represented fewer than 30,000. Therefore, I am especially sensitive—there are a number of us in this position—to fair representation.
I condemn the Bill because it smells to high Heaven of political expediency. If there had been any doubt about that, the smell has wafted across the Chamber tonight. I condemn it too, because it introduces constitutional innovations that have not been thought through and that if proceeded with are fraught with the greatest danger for the whole of the people of the United Kingdom.
Before I set my hand to agreeing to the proposals in the Bill I have to ask myself three questions. The first question

is whether they maintain and strengthen the unity of my country and enhance its standing in the world. The second question is whether they would provide for better government. The third question, which is especially relevant to that which we are discussing, is whether they are acceptable to all the people. The answer to all three questions is a resounding "No".
As to acceptability, it is not merely that there should be "no taxation without representation" but rather than no burden should be put on any part of the people without fair representation. That principle is as old as the hills. It was first affirmed in the Justinian Code and repeated in the writ of summons to the Model Parliament of 1295, namely that "What touches all ought to be approved by all".

Mr. Douglas Crawford: It was an English Parliament.

Sir B. Braine: We shall come to that in due course. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am no enemy of a genuine devolution or of the Scottish interest, but I conceive of this matter in terms of the whole people of the United Kingdom. I have to ask myself whether this Bill is likely to be acceptable to all the people, especially to those I represent, when they discover that Scottish Members in future will not be able to vote here on Scottish housing, Scottish health or Scottish education but will be able to vote on English housing, English health and English education.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: We do not want to do so.

Sir B. Braine: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. We know where the Scottish National Party stands. It stands for the break-up of the kingdom. We know, too, that the Labour Party, or at least the Government, is so frightened of the SNP that it has produced this Bill as some sort of sop to it.
But that does not fool the rest of us, and it will not fool the people of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) suggested earlier, the only possible justification that the Leader of the House can have for his speech is that he believes that a Labour


Government must continue to rely on their 41 Scottish Members to keep them in office in this country. If England were free to choose, it would hurl the Labour Party as at present constituted into political oblivion—we all know that.
Why was the Kilbrandon Commission recommendation that the number of Scottish Members be reduced from 71 to 57 ignored by the Government? What is the game that the Government are playing on a matter of such key importance to the constitution? The idea that a Bill which ignores a matter so fundamental to fair representation should be subject to the guillotine is shocking beyond all measure. To introduce a guillotine would not be simply a matter of getting Government business through; it would be interference with the basic right of the citizens of this country not to be taxed without fair representation. That is the point I seek to make, and it is fundamental to the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Kilbrandon Report gave a warning that unless there was a large measure of agreement and consensus legislative devolution and an Assembly should not be gone ahead with?

Sir B. Braine: I recollect the warning. It begs the question as to why the Government should have so blatantly ignored such wise words.

Mr. Buchan: On the question of consensus, surely the report refers to the people. The Government have granted a referendum. That is where the consensus should come from, and not from the politicians.

Sir B. Braine: I am not particularly in conflict with the hon. Gentleman. I have said that if the people of Scotland want devolution and express their agreement to a set of clear proposals, that is a matter for them. That, however, is not what the Bill is about. Let the people of England realise that this Government wish to shackle, them with machinery for permanent Socialist control of Wales and Scotland with the English taxpayer finding the means, and they will have a revolt on their hands, I promise them, that will shake the kingdom.
Let the Government beware of what they are doing, whether it is by design or by a fit of absence of mind. In any event the time has long since passed when, without this Bill, there is need to ensure more equitable representation.
12 midnight
Northern Ireland is under-represented. Scotland and Wales are over-represented. Wales has been over-represented since 1918 and Scotland has always been overrepresented since the Act of Union. In the past there may well have been justification for that. But under the arrangements set out in the Bill there is no justification whatever. The time has come to say that if the Bill becomes law then unfair representation, if I can adopt a phrase of Sir Winston Churchill's, is something "up with which English Members will not put".
The Government have chosen to set the people of these Islands against one another for their own narrow partisan purposes. I warn them to beware of the anger of the English. It is aroused very slowly but once our English constituents fully realise what is proposed in the Bill and the cost they will have to bear, there will be a great wave of anger. To be fair, I believe that many Government supporters sitting for Scottish and Welsh seats understand that very well indeed.
The proper way to deal with a matter of constitutional importance of this kind is not to play the numbers game in an arbitrary way in an ill-drafted and ridiculous Bill such as this. The proper way is to refer the matter to a Speaker's Conference with properly wide terms of reference and a representation accurately reflecting the balance of the parties in the House.
I do not agree with the contemptuous remarks by the Leader of the House about a Speaker's Conference. There have been four Speakers' Conferences on electoral law and the first presided over by Mr. Speaker Lowther, which met in 1916–17 to consider electoral reform made recommendations which formed the basis of the Representation of the People Act of 1918.
The House of Commons always puts great faith in the Speaker. He is impartial and is seen to be impartial. That is not to say that all Speaker's Conferences have


been successful. Some were not, but this is a means of dealing with the matter in an independent way which would take control out of the hands of the Leader of the House who, on a matter like this, cannot be trusted.

Mr. Foot: I made no disrespectful remarks about any Speaker's Conference. Indeed, I am in favour of upholding the general conclusions of the Speaker's Conference of 1944 and hold the view that the principles we seek to sustain are the same principles which were upheld then.

Sir B. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman spoke scathingly about Speaker's Conferences and said they were not relevant to this issue. I do not wish to detain the House. I am concerned about fair and proper representation for all the people of this kingdom. Under the Bill that will not be ensured.

Mr. Peter Emery: The Leader of the House has made great play about putting his faith in the arguments for the disproportional representation of Wales and Scotland in the Speaker's Conference of 1944. He has in no way said that the Government accept those principles. Since the right hon. Gentleman's speech started I have gone to the trouble of finding the Speaker's Conference of 1944 on electoral reform and the redistribution of seats. This was published in the White Paper—Command 6534—as a letter from the Speaker to the Prime Minister. Here is the totality of the logic behind the stance being taken by the Leader of the House. It says:
There shall be no reduction in the present number of Members of the House of Commons for Scotland and Wales and Monmouthshire.
That is all. There is nothing else. Where are all the reasons and arguments? Where is all the logic? This is nonsense. The Committee is being misled.

Sir B. Braine: I could not have put it better. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate and that they share not merely my anxiety but my anger at the way in which the Committee has been treated by the Lord President. He has done a grave disservice to Parliament. He has done a grave disservice to

a great political party. The Labour Party has always claimed to be the party of the people and to represent the voice of the underdog. Left in the hands of the Lord President, the country is heading fast towards totalitarianism. He has ceased to be the champion of parliamentary rights and parliamentary liberty.
I leave it at that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come to repent. I have been watching him, and I have noted his demeanour. He knows in his heart of hearts that he has been telling the Committee a travesty and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire is right. He knows that the country is slipping down the path towards ultimate destruction and ruin. If the Government pull down the pillars of the temple, as this Government have been doing busily for the past two years, disaster will surely come.
I plead with Government supporters to pause and reflect upon the speech that we heard from the Lord President. It is not too late to agree to the proposition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire put before the Committee. It was reasonable, democratic and in line with our parliamentary tradition. It may be almost the last chance.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I believe that the Opposition are to be congratulated on initiating a debate on this subject. It raises an important question which is causing considerable anxiety amongst Government supporters.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and his condemnation of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I have heard my right hon. Friend make many better speeches, but he has a difficult task in trying to deal with this matter.
I accept and am convinced that it is not the Government's wish to reduce the representation in the House from Wales and Scotland. But I believe that this is a topic which will be considered increasingly if Assemblies are established in Edinburgh and Cardiff.
As we have discussed the Bill so far, one of the difficulties has been the desire for devolution and the feeling that the Government were trying to meet that commitment, that they would give something to the people of Wales by establishing an Asembly in Cardiff, and that they


would give something to the people of Scotland by establishing an Assembly in Edinburgh. But we have come to learn as we have debated these proposals that there is a bill which will have to be paid for the Assemblies that we are to obtain. It is important that the costs to the people of Wales and of Scotland of having these Assemblies are spelt out clearly.
I welcome the Government's decision that the people, in the end, will have a referendum and will be able to decide whether we are to accept this measure. That is good, because I believe that the people of Wales and Scotland must weigh up the benefits which they will get from these Assemblies.
I am not supporting the Opposition amendment because I do not believe that this is the way in which we should deal with the issue. But we must ask ourselves whether a diminution in the number of representatives from Scotland and Wales in this House in future years will be a consequence of establishing the Assemblies. The case of Northern Ireland has been mentioned. But we all know the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. The argument has been put forward again and again that the reason for Northern Ireland's apparent under-representation in this House was that Stormont deals with certain matters which could not be dealt with here. Therefore, it was argued, there was a case for a smaller representation here.
I remember that in 1964 we could cot raise issues relating to Northern Ireland at all in this House. However, when the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) came to the House he forced the issue with the Table Office, and now we can discuss Northern Ireland questions. Before that, if Back Benchers wanted to raised Northern Ireland issues they were told that these were out of order.
Therefore, it is important to ask whether representation from Scotland and Wales in the House will diminish as a result of the Bill. Will there be a loss of influence of hon. Members from Wales and Scotland? The Lord President had an illustrious predecessor in Nye Bevan, who did so much towards establishing the Health Service. My right hon. Friend also has played an important part in the life of Britain and has followed in the

footsteps of Nye Bevan. If Assemblies are established in Cardiff and Edinburgh will hon. Members from Welsh seats play as important a part in the life of Britain as my right hon. Friend and his predecessor? Or will the situation be as it was with Northern Ireland Members when Stormont existed in that they were not able to participate fully in the affairs of this House? I remember that when a previous hon. Member for Londonderry was taken on to the Conservative Front Bench it was considered a very strange situation. That was because of the existence of Stormont. Scottish and Welsh Members from both sides of the House have held high office in many Departments.
Another important question we must ask is what will be the influence of the Welsh Grand Committee? It has played an important part in dealing with Welsh affairs. It has been said that there will not be a Welsh Grand Committee if this Bill is implemented, but that if there is one it will have to have a reduced agenda. Many of the matters that are now discussed will be devolved to the Assembly in Cardiff—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is always vocal at this time of night.

12.15 a.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I am vocal at all times. No one tackles the Prime Minister at 3.15 in the afternoon more often than I. Will the hon. Member explain why the Assemblies will be so dangerous, and why he and people like him are so worried about them?

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Lady will listen she will find out why I believe that in this situation we are not only giving something to the people of Scotland and Wales but are losing other things and that we might be losing more than we appear to be gaining.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member spoke of the bill that would have to be paid if devolution went ahead. But surely, whether or not the Lord President concedes what we are asking tonight, it will only be a question of payment deferred, and sooner or later the English people will say that Scotland and Wales cannot be over-represented here?

Mr. Evans: Guarantees may be given now by the Conservatives or by the Government, but no one can predetermine what future Governments will do. We can all make guesses. One fact has emerged, however. It is that if there were no argument for reducing Welsh and Scottish representation before, this Bill has now presented such an argument to those who would reduce that representation at Westminster.

Dr. Phipps: My lion. Friend brings up one of the central points. It is clear that with the House as currently constituted, without devolution the arguments for Scottish and Welsh representation are very strong. Later this year the House will be faced with a Bill on representation in the European Parliament. That will enshrine exactly the same principle. The Government will propose in it that we should give greater representation to Scotland and Wales than they would normally get. Does he agree that the Government are selling the pass, not necessarily to future Labour Governments but to future Conservative Governments as soon as the devolution Bill is passed, in regard to representation in this House?

Mr. Evans: That is important and it should be borne in mind when we are considering the advantages which will accrue to the people of Wales if we get the Assembly.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman said that there were dangers of losing institutions of great value and gaining others of lesser value. He quoted the Welsh Grand Committee. That Committee cannot take a single decision. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that to lose that and to gain a body that can take executive decisions is a step in the wrong direction?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman does not believe in having any Welsh Members in this House. He wants formal political separatism. What worries me about this Bill is the enthusiasm of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists for it. The hon. Gentleman has seen the Welsh Grand Committee working as effectively as it can. But it is up to this Parliament to make it work more effectively.
It has been said that local government will not be affected. More recently the Government have admitted that the

structure of local government will be greatly affected.

The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Joyce Butler): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the amendment.

Mr. Evans: I am dealing with one or two items that we must weigh up when we talk about the advantages of the Assemblies and the cost, Mrs. Butler.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is out of order in straying so far. He must return to the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Evans: If I had had the opportunity, I should have developed the question of other dangers in the Bill, but there will be other opportunities.
If we have the Assemblies in Cardiff and Edinburgh, are Members from Wales and Scotland to carry on as before, or is there a question mark over not only the numbers of Members but the nature of the representation of Wales and Scotland at Westminster? I warn Conservative Members, who may think that the Government have presented them on a plate with the opportunity to reduce the numbers of Members from Wales and Scotland, that such action would further weaken the unity of the British Isles.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has eloquently raised some important questions. He has not yet given any answers. Can he think of a better place to discuss those important questions than a Speaker's Conference?

Mr. Evans: I am not sure that a Speaker's Conference is the best place to deal with them. I hope that the matter will never be referred to a Speaker's Conference. But if the decision is that there is to be a Welsh Assembly, the people of Wales must decide certain matters related to that decision. That is why we should spend time going through the Bill line by line, so that the full implications can be spelt out to the people of Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall not give way again.
I am glad that the matter has been raised, because the debate will throw light on issues of vital consequence to the people of Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Powell: There is no hon. or right hon. Gentleman who can make a good case so brilliantly as the Lord President. There is no hon. or right hon. Gentleman who can make a bad case so brilliantly as the Lord President. But what the Lord President cannot do—and this is to his credit—is to make a case in which he himself does not believe. That was what the Committee witnessed tonight in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Perhaps the manner in which he delivered it was an even more effective refutation of such argument as there was as the content of the speech itself.
The right hon. Gentleman is a great student of Jonathan Swift, so his mind must often have turned to that adventure of Gulliver where Gulliver comes to the island of Laputa, the inhabitants of which spend their whole time endeavouring to do that which is self-evidently impossible, which is not only demonstrable by logic to be impossible but which is proved to be impossible by repeated experiments. The island of Laputa was not far distant from the England of Dean Swift. It was indeed the land of Dean Swift and many of his Laputan—

Mr. Michael English: He was Irish.

Mr. Powell: I am well aware of that. But he spent the part of his life in which "Gulliver's Travels" was devised in this part of the United Kingdom. Many of the Laputans of his day were in the House of Commons of his day. It is no new occupation of the House of Commons to spend weeks, months or years on exactly the type of experiment upon which the people discovered by Gulliver were persistently engaged.
No attempt of this kind has occupied so much of the time of the House of Commons over a century or more as the endeavour to discover how there can be a legislative Assembly for part of the unitary United Kingdom. In the case of Ireland it tried all kinds of ways. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to some of them. In the end it was proved by experiment, as it was demonstrable initially by reason, that the thing, by its very nature, could not be done.
This evening we are looking at that impossibility from one of its many facets.

The right hon. Gentleman glanced at one or two of them. We propose to set up an elective Assembly and to give it legislative powers over 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of those subjects which engage the legislative attention of the House of Commons. Well and good.
The question then arises: how is that part of the kingdom to be represented in the House of Commons? Of course, the nationalists, quite logically, say that they should not be represented here because they do not belong here. They deny the unity of the kingdom. That is not to solve the problem. That is to sweep the chessmen off the board.
The Lord President looks at and properly rejects the "in and out" solution—namely, that the Members who come from the part of the kingdom thus enjoying legislative facilities shall pop in for business in the long list which he laboriously read out and shall pop out as soon as we happen to touch upon matters which are legislatively devolved to the part which they represent. I believe that in this, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman carried the Committee with him in rejecting, as Parliament in 1893 rejected, the "in and out" first-class and second-class solution.
Are the numbers to be reduced? Are we to say that, as they have legislative devolution for five-eighths of the subjects which in total concern the House of Commons, they shall have five-eighths of the Members? But that is not logical, for they ought to have full representation on matters which are not devolved legislatively to their part of the country and no representation on matters which are.
Therefore, although in 1912, repeated in 1913 and 1914 under the Parliament Act, a measure was got on to the statute book which contained the imaginary solution of a proportionate reduction of representation from an Ireland with far-reaching legislative devolution, it never happened. There was no opportunity for it to happen. Even after 1920 it never happened in three-quarters of that island under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. There is no logical reason and no logical ground which underlies the proposition that representation should be proportionately reduced.
12.30 a.m.
So the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House says, "All we have to do is—nothing. There is no problem at all. We just leave them represented as they are at present, with their full membership as before." There was a moment—although it was not absolutely clear—in the right hon. Gentleman's dialogue with one of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches when he went so far as to suggest, I think, that by virtue of Clause 1 there ought to be no reduction of the representation of Scotland in the House because the House could—and would the right hon. Gentleman add the word "would"?—concern itself in all the matters devolved to a Scottish legislature. Here is the reductio ad absurdum at the other end. To justify the full representation in this House, he not only has to say that this House can intervene in the affairs of Scotland, even on the devolved subjects, in accordance with Clause 1. That will not do. Once every 50 years will not justify full representation. He also has to say—and this came out in our earlier debate—that it is necessary and reasonable to say that the House will constantly concern itself with the affairs of Scotland, that it will legislate over the head of the Scottish Assembly, that it will inquire behind the back of the Scottish Assembly, that the affairs of Scotland will be as much on the Floor of the House as the affairs of any other part of the United Kingdom.
I grant him that on that basis, if that is what Clause 1 of the Bill is to mean, continued full representation for Scotland is entirely justified. But then where is devolution?

Mr. Dalyell: Hear hear.

Mr. Powell: The devolution has gone. The solution has, of course, eluded us. It has gone out of another door.
But let us suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House did not mean to be drawn quite so far along that path. Let us suppose that he tries to brazen it out and says, "Well, it is very difficult, so we shall not make any change at all. There are to be 71 Scottish Members in this House, and they will speak and vote like all other Members on all subjects that come before the House, whether those be subjects on

which devolved legislative power is enjoyed by Scotland or not."
It is a rough approximation that perhaps five-eighths or three-quarters of the time of this House is spent debating or legislating on matters which would be within the competence of the Scottish Assembly as envisaged under the Bill. A Government, a party which occupies the Government Benches, expect to find, and normally do find, some coherence in their policies. If it is a Socialist Party, its Socialism is not to be discovered in its foreign affairs and fiscal management only. Its Socialism will permeate all its legislation, whether it be housing, education, planning, or the management of local government. Its policies on all these must be a consistent expression of the policy on which that party received its majority from the electorate, and it will therefore quite rightly expect to legislate in accordance with that policy as long as its majority lasts in this House.
How can it be possible, with 71 Members coming from a part of the kingdom where five-eighths of these subjects are dealt with by an Assembly of which the composition does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the composition of this House, that those 71 Members should very often have the deciding voice and that they should make it possible or impossible for the Government to legislate in accordance with their policies? Remember that these subjects which are to be devolved are the very heart of politics. They are the very substance of the matters which are agitated at elections. They are the very substance of the matters which brought most hon. Members, on both sides, into the House and into politics.
Are we to be told that in the House the decision would frequently be determined by hon. Members who have, in the sense of other hon. Members, no responsibility whatever for those subjects and in whose constituencies those subjects are dealt with in accordance with a different make-up of the electorate and a different make-up of the elected Assembly? The think could not work, and this Committee knows perfectly well that it could not. This Committee knows perfectly well that it cannot accept the presence of 70–odd Members who, through no fault of their own, cannot be our peers in the House of Commons, cannot


be part of that pattern of party which makes the House of Commons.
There is no solution to this problem. It is, by definition, impossible to devolve legislative responsibility over a large sphere of politics and still retain the unity of the kingdom expressed in the sovereignty and the legislative competence of this House of Commons.
Just in case—it has been said so many times before—the apparent exception of Northern Ireland should be produced, let me say that it is an exception which proves the rule to the hilt for two reasons. The first is because it was minimal and the addition which was made by the 12 Northern Ireland Members in the House to the size of the Conservative majority or minority never exceeded six or seven on a Division. Secondly, it is because in Northern Ireland every endeavour was made by the management of the devolved powers to ensure that they did not have the natural consequences of that devolution.
I return to Northern Ireland, briefly and within the limits of the amendment. My hon. Friends and I have to address ourselves to the new clause on which the Committee is eventually to vote. We find ourselves asked, whether it be a suitable means of doing it or not, to commend the establishment of a Speaker's Conference to consider the appropriate number of Members to represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies. It would be impossible for any of us, being, as we are, the spokesmen of the undoubted grievances of our constituencies—with our part of the kingdom enjoying less local government than any other part of the kingdom, enjoying no devolved government in any sense of the term, having no immediate prospect, to put it at its lowest, of receiving any such powers, being represented on a far lower scale than any other part of the kindgom—to tender our assent to the proposition that the representation of Scotland and Wales should be reconsidered with not a word said about the crying scandal of the under-representation of Northern Ireland.
We must, in the first place, say that we could have nothing to do with the amendment. But we must also say that the claim of Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, to full and fair representation has no longer—it it ever

had—any relevance to the Bill. Here, tangentially, I make contact with the right hon. Gentleman. This is because if this Bill never came into existence Northern Ireland, as things are at present, would have an indefeasible claim to full representation.
What the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has said tonight has added to that claim the assertion that whatever form of devolution may be in prospect within the United Kingdom for Northern Ireland, that indefeasible claim is undiminished and intact. So, irrespective of the framework of the Bill, the representation of 1½ million citizens of this United Kingdom who live in Northern Ireland is before the House, it is upon the conscience of the House, and it will not go away until it is dealt with.
Finally, a word about what full and fair representation would mean in that context. If the principle is to be accepted that there is to be a uniform representation of the whole of the United Kingdom, then I think that we would say that our claim has always been to be treated as the rest. So, harshly though that might bear upon us, we will accept it. But we are told that the principle which the Leader of the House seemed to find implicit in the results of the Speaker's Conference in 1944 is that parts of the United Kingdom comparable to Scotland, and to a lesser degree to Wales, with great distances from the centre of Government, great sparsity of population, are fully and fairly represented only when they are represented on a somewhat higher scale and with a smaller electoral quota than that which applies to England with its large urban and industrial areas.
We intimate to the House, on the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that unless different decisions are taken in the United Kingdom as a whole, full and fair representation for Northern Ireland means representation on approximately that scale which Scotland hitherto has enjoyed.
The conundrum which lies at the heart of the Bill of course will destroy the Bill. That conundrum is an explosive charge which will, sooner or later, blow it to pieces. Independent of that we say that the representation of the United Kingdom in this House, at any rate as it represents one part, does call for attention. We say that this House will not be fully true to


itself until it has given full and fair representation to that Province which at present lacks it.

Mr. Michael Stewart: This is the first time that I have ventured to take part in debates on the Bill and it may well be the last. I take part tonight only because we seem to be engaged on a question that is of special and exceptional concern to English hon. Members. It is a question that deals not only with the government of Scotland and Wales but with certain principles about the government of the United Kingdom.
I start from the principle that it is clear that even if the Bill goes through substantially as it stands now, this Parliament at Westminster will be the body that decides some of the greatest issues that affect all peoples of the United Kingdom. For example, the Westminster Parliament will still decide on matters that concern our relationship with foreign countries and with the Commonwealth, the standing of the country with the world, economic matters and the organisation of social security. All those decisions will remain within the power of the Westminster Parliament. That being so, we should in general and by and large secure equal representation in this Parliament for the various nations that make up the United Kingdom.
12.45 a.m.
I use the qualifying phrases "in general" and "by and large" for the reason that there are certain exceptions to that principle that probably all of us would accept. There would be few Members of this House who would demand that on numerical grounds Orkney and Shetlands should cease to be a constituency and should be tucked into a bit of the mainland. But when we make it a constituency on its own we give its citizens a considerable over-representation, numerically. That shows that we cannot press the numerical argument too rigidly. That is why I said "in general" and "by and large."
I would add that when we have a country—as ours is and as many others are—that is one State containing in it distinct entities that we can call nations, there is some case—if we depart from strict equality at all—for showing a degree of favour to the smaller nations in order to

allay any fear that they may have, arising from the fact that they are minority nations, that they will be continually overridden. That is broadly what we have done.
Apart from the question of Northern Ireland, raised so eloquently by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I cannot see that any good case can be made for making substantial alterations in the representation of this Parliament.
If, as is suggested in the amendment, the matter is to go to a Speaker's Conference, other matters concerning representation will have to go as well—the unquestionable over-representation of the thinly populated areas, for instance. Many of us would wish to raise that matter. If the question of Scotland and Wales is to be raised, the question of the representation of thinly-populated areas will have to be raised as well.
I am not sure whether we should be wise to commit ourselves to a full discussion of all these matters as a side issue in a debate on an amendment to the Bill.
It has been argued that if we have a Westminster Parliament of the kind that I have described, in which, subject to certain exceptions, there is roughly equal treatment of the different nations making up the United Kingdom, but we then have devolved Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, it imposes an injustice on English Members. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) made an impassioned speech a little while ago. I was not sure whether the pillars of the temple were to be pulled down or whether they had come down already—I understand that they had come down already; ruin was to come later. If the hon. Member is to talk like that, other hon. Members are entitled to say whether we think that a colossal injustice is being done to us if the Scots and the Welsh have Assemblies wielding devolved powers and have the kind of representation that they now have in the British Parliament. Greater London has a population nearly equal to that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined, and has some rights, but, as a Londoner, I cannot feel that there would be such a colossal injustice, and I certainly would not want it remedied by tampering with the important principle of equal


rights of the different nations to be represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Assemblies will be tiers, or partners, in central Government and, therefore, that there will be not 71 people representing Scottish central Government but about 180, in addition. In my constituency, for instance, there will be three people instead of one dealing with the same matters. That is a matter of central Government. Part of the House will be devolved to two and a half times as many people. That is the problem. Our interests will be represented by so many more people.

Mr. Stewart: The habit of interventions is getting a little abused. It always seems to me better for speeches to be made consecutively rather than simultaneously or antiphonally across the Chamber.
I was coming to that point. The point at issue is this. Is an injustice done to parts of the kingdom that have not got devolved government if the representation in this House of Commons remains the same? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] All I can say is that it does not immediately seem to me to be one of the burning grievances of the day. If I felt a sense of grievance, I should not want to see it remedied by a remedy worse than the disease—that of upsetting the balance of the representation of the different nations in the United Kingdom here, and probably creating a very real resentment then between the different parts of the United Kingdom.
Let us look at the matter a little more practically. We in London have certain grievances. I trust that I shall not stray from order. I think that this is relevant to the argument. The management of the finances of the Greater London Council is brought to be surveyed by the House of Commons in a way in which the finances of no other great city are surveyed. I cannot see why we should be nursemaided in that fashion. We have to pay a police rate, though unlike the inhabitants of any other part of the United Kingdom, we have no control over or voice in the controlling of our police.

Mr. Powell: Nor have we.

Mr. Stewart: I cannot feel that if there were fewer Scottish and Welsh Members here, either of those grievances would be substantially remedied. The remedy for that would be to make a shift in the balance between which things are done by central legislation and which things can be done in London and other parts of the kingdom—that is to say, if the English anywhere feel that they have a grievance because of the representation here, what they should ask for, if they wish—and I stress that—would be a similar measure of devolution to those offered to Scotland and Wales.
Personally, I would not ask for that, because frankly I am not in the least convinced that providing parts of the United Kingdom with a devolved Assembly will prove a benefit and a blessing to them. However, we have safeguarded that by the fact that at the end of the day, when we have worked out what kind of devolved scheme could be workable, the Scots and the Welsh are to be entitled to say whether or not they want it.
I should have thought that in trying to deal with politics—a practical matter of reconciling general principles with what people genuinely want and what can be made to work—there is nothing unreasonable at all in saying this: first, in this Parliament the nations of the United Kingdom should be on a broadly equal basis of representation. Second, if there are parts of the United Kingdom which, for long historical reasons and reasons that have validity today, want a considerable measurse of devolution that falls short of a federal State or the dismemberment of the kingdom, if they genuinely want it and if that has been demonstrated, not only by argument in the House of Commons but by referendum, then they should have it. However, it does not in the least follow that parts of the United Kingdom that have not made any such demand and possibly never will, should have something planted on them that they do not want.
I think that the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South led us to the conclusion that we had better get rid of the Bill altogether. However, if there is a genuine and deep desire in Scotland and Wales for a Bill of this kind, it would be unwise and injurious to the unity of the United Kingdom to deny it. If there is not such a desire they will


make that plain in the referendum. That is why I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman to his conclusion. But none of these things can be remedied by tampering with the right of people to be represented in the British Parliament, which decides in the end the greatest issues of all.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) spoke with his usual logic and precision, but on a false premise—that there is already a balance in the representation of the various parts of the United Kingdom. The basis of this debate is that there is no such balance and that, far from a few special interests having been taken into account, there is a major difference in the representation of different parts of the Kingdom.
When the Lord President rose to speak much earlier than has been the practice of the Front Bench in these debates, the thought flashed across my mind that it could be because the Government had changed their thinking on one aspect of the Bill. Of course that was not so. I do not know why he chose to intervene when he did or why he made a speech which, much though I disagreed with it, was very significant and will be quoted many times in these debates.
The right hon. Gentleman went to the heart of the Government's ambivalence in this matter. He sought to address to one group of his hon. Friends the plea that the role of Members from Scotland and Wales would be largely unchanged because they could continue to ask Questions on just about anything they chose affecting Scotland and Wales, while seeking to address to others the argument that substantial autonomy would be granted to the Assemblies. Those arguments will not sit side by side.

Mr. Ridley: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that what we are talking about is not the ability to ask Questions about English matters but the ability to contribute to the making or breaking of the Government of one party or another. The whole thing is about whether or not we shall have a Labour Government.

Mr. Beith: Indeed so, and 1 shall come to that. But we should now recognise the significance of what the Lord President said. His speech displayed a monumental

and cynical conservatism, based, as it was, on a Speaker's Conference held in 1944, which he will find rather worrying if he looks at it closely. What the right hon. Gentleman will make of the argument presented at the Conference—not in the Speaker's final letter—that Scotland and Wales should not be "punished" for the depopulation which had resulted from the unsuccessful policies of successive Governments, I do not know. But if the right hon. Gentleman rests on that, I can point to other parts of the United Kingdom, not least in England, which have suffered depopulation and to which, on that argument, the same benefits should now be applied.
The amendment is designed to make possible—not certain—the reduction of Scottish and Welsh representation in the House of Commons, simply because they are over-represented—Scotland more so than Wales. Why should there be a seat for every 53,000 Scottish electors but only for every 66,000 English electors and every 86,000 Northern Ireland electors?
Let us not confuse this matter with the argument about rural areas, distance from London and special geographical factors. The Boundary Commissioners are specifically and separately charged to take those factors into account in Scotland, England, Wales and, I suppose, even Northern Ireland. Those factors do not apply to the centre of Glasgow. The fact that some constituencies in Scotland, as in Northern Ireland, present geographical problems has no bearing on how the centre of Glasgow should be represented. They are not an argument for saying that a particular locality should have greater representation than would be appropriate elsewhere in England.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The logic of that argument is that Members such as myself in the North of England should represent fewer people than Members in the London area. How can the hon. Gentleman justify that?

1 a.m.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making my case. I make the point that the Boundary Commission must make appropriate allocations for both rural and urban areas. The problems of urban areas and proper levels of representation do not differ because the area is Glasgow or Tyneside. I can see no


argument for treating Glasgow more favourably than Tyneside. Thanks to the vagaries of government over the years, representation in Tyneside is in total chaos. Some seats are above the appropriate quota while one seat is ludicrously below its proper quota. I am saying that there is no reason for an urban area in Scotland being treated more favourably than an urban area in the North of England.
The Boundary Commission has been given separate responsibilities to deal with these problems. If there were a common United Kingdom quota, variations of the quota could continue to be applied to deal with various geographical circumstances, although to take my own constituency as an example, it would be difficult to change the boundaries. On one side there is the sea. On the other side are hills across which no roads travel. Apart from a little detail, we do not seem to be changing the national boundary between Scotland and England in this Bill.
The West Country has problems of geography and the forming of constituency boundaries, but these problems do not justify giving the general over-repretation which Scotland at present has. They are separate matters and separate provision can be made. The Boundary Commission's terms of reference state that special allowance must be made for
special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of constituencies.
To apply a general quota to Scotland would lead to a reduction in representation. Probably the reduction would not be as great as some hon. Members might imagine. I believe that there would be a reduction of about seven seats in the present Scottish representation. I do not understand how that can be argued by the Leader of the House as the tearing apart of the United Kingdom.
The argument has been advanced that Scotland and Wales should be given some sort of extra or bonus representation because of some lack of attention to their needs on the part of central Government. I never thought that was a sound argument, but it seems to have lost all credibility in the context of the Bill, which on the Government's argument is supposed to make the government of Scotland and Wales better, although there are different

views about that. Devolution seems to knock away any credibility from the proposition for extra representation.
I have argued that a reduction is already justified, but that is not a solution to the problem of the imbalance of devolution. English Members are concerned that they will be out-voted by Scottish Members on English domestic issues and that Scottish Members will continue to have a disproportionate say in what the Government of the United Kingdom should be. That continues to be a problem.
The problem faced by the presence of Assemblies dealing with many domestic matters in Scotland and Wales is not resolved by bringing the representation of Scotland and Wales to a fair level, but I do not accept the argument that has been advanced that we should go further and effect a penal reduction of Scottish and Welsh seats to compensate for the benefits that they are supposed to derive from devolution. A modest numerical reduction of Scottish influence does not answer the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Down South (Mr. Powell). To fiddle with the numbers to compensate for the fact that there will be Scottish Members here who can speak on English isstes and determine the shape of the Government as a whole does not answer the fundamental arguments involved. It did net do so in Ireland.
Moreover, the sort of penal clauses that were a feature of the Government of Ireland Act have a frightening habit of outliving the very arrangements that are supposed to justify them. That is what happened in Northern Ireland.
Nor can I be particularly enthusiastic about the "two-class" Parliament which has been suggested, under which a Speaker's Certificate would prohibit Scottish and Welsh Members from taking part in English business. I share the views about the practical difficulties in that, and I do not understand how the Government could proceed with English business if they had not a majority for it although they had a majority for being a Government.
In any case, we Liberals look to the day when we shall have regional Parliaments in England to deal with these problems in balance, when it will be right and appropriate that this Parliament, as


a federal Parliament, will properly represent all parts of the United Kingdom on the same basis. The reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh Members to a General United Kingdom quota is not the answer to the inherent anomalies of partial devolution. It is justified in itself. The point of the Bill is that it knocks away the last creaking leg of the argument for the over-representation of Scotland.
I turn now to the question whether New Clause 36 is the best way to deal with the problem. This is difficult to answer because of the way the clause is worded. The Speaker's Conference could deal only with Scotland and Wales and therefore could not effect a general redistribution according to a United Kingdom quota or reallocate any of the seats which might be released by reducing Scottish and Welsh representation in order to redress imbalance elsewhere, such as Northern Ireland. It could effect a reduction only by reducing the total size of the House of Commons.
I appreciate the procedural difficulties which have led the Conservative Front Bench to word the clause as it is. We know from bitter experience that our amendment, which sought to widen the terms of the clause has been ruled out of order, and the Chair has made it clear that it does not see any possibility of carrying out what we suggest in the Bill. So it seems that New Clause 36 is the only way in which we could get a Speaker's Conference, as the Government show no enthusiasm for the proposal. In that sense, the hands of the Opposition are tied.
But why do it by a Speaker's Conference at all? It was not done in the case of Ireland. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 did not do it. Section 19 of the Act is headed:
Irish Representation in the House of Commons.
Subsection (a) says:
After the appointed day the number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-six, and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in Parts I. and II. of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

Subsection(c) says:
On the appointed day, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats, and writs shall, as soon as conveniently may be issued for the purpose of holding an election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom …".
On the new calculation, that was 46 Members, of whom 12, plus the old Queen's University seat, were to come from Northern Ireland. Those 12 have survived to this day. That was done without a Speaker's Conference, and I would prefer the present situation to be handled in that way as well.
I am not very enthusiastic about the idea of a Speaker's Conference. It would be in no way committed to bringing down the number of Scottish and Welsh seats, which I regard as necessary. The Government would have half the membership of the Conference and would go into the Conference committed to opposing a reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament.
Again, while I sympathise with many of the arguments put by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I did not get the impression from what he said that if he were a member of the Speaker's Conference he would be committed to reducing the number of Scottish and Welsh Members. He has not yet formed a view, it seems. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) is against a reduction in the number of Scottish Members. Perhaps we shall eventually get a balanced view from the Conservatives, but as yet there is no commitment from them that they will seek to reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh Members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is it not the case that a Speaker's Conference draws up its own terms of reference and is not bound in any specific way as to how it shall advise this House about what to do? Therefore, does not the mere existence of the Speaker's Conference, which can make its own terms of reference, enable that Conference to deal with the point the hon. Gentleman is making as well as the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), namely, that there is nothing to prevent the Speaker's Conference from


dealing with Northern Ireland once it is set up?

Mr. Beith: When the Speaker's Conference is set up specific matters are remitted to it by the Prime Minister, usually after consultation between the parties. It is not open to the Speaker's Conference simply to decide its own terms of reference.
Although the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this, it is not the point with which I am now dealing, which is that however wide the terms of reference I see no basis for an outcome of the kind for which I am arguing. Government Members would be totally opposed to such an outcome and there is confusion about what Opposition Members might do.
Let us assume that the Speaker's Conference produced a recommendation that the number of seats in Scotland should be reduced to the United Kingdom quota. Not all Speaker's Conference recommendations come before this House. The Speaker's Conference of 1972 or 1973 produced a recommendation about multiple registration—people being registered for votes in more than one constituency. That has never come before this House. Indeed, the Home Office has bitterly and vigorously opposed its implementation.
When the present Prime Minister found himself obliged in 1969 to lay before the House constitutional proposals that he did not like concerning the boundaries of constituencies, he simply turned to his hon. Friends and said "Please do not vote for these proposals".

Mr. Brittan: Whatever way this is wrapped up there is no way in which what the hon. Gentleman would like to achieve could come into effect unless there was a majority for it in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is merely a question of in which way the matter should be considered and at which stage the House is asked to reach a conclusion.

Mr. Beith: If there is no majority for it, then for Heaven's sake let us find out now. Why wait until after a Speaker's Conference and have a further delay in the establishment of the Assemblies? I am coming to the conclusion that there does not appear to be unanimity in the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Can my hon. Friend think of one proposal made by any Speaker's Conference which has not been to the interest of whichever has been majority party of the day?

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. Speaker's Conferences reflect, as they must do, the balance of opinion of the House at the time. One of the things the Conference will reflect is the present representation and the fact that the number of Scottish Members who may consider themselves entitled to be on it may be larger than those we may ultimately see in the House. If there is no majority in the House for fair representation in the various parts of the United Kingdom, then we shall not get it. The British public ought to be able to see the way these things work in practice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman talks about fair representation. Does he mean equity in numbers, or how does he define "fair"?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into pastures over which we trod a few nights ago. I have tried to reach a view on fairness that the hon. Gentleman would not find unacceptable. I have sought to answer some of the arguments that some of his hon. Friends put forward about the special circumstances in some Scottish constituencies.
What is demonstrably unfair is to see Scottish constituencies as a whole, or Northern Ireland constituencies as a whole, reduced in size simply because they happen to fall in Scotland or Northern Ireland and not because of any special features which may make it difficult for those constituencies to come up to normal size. I can see no fairness in the over-representation of Scotland or the under-representation of Northern Ireland.
We are being offered a bone with no meat on it. It is a proposal from which we can see no significant or material conclusion. It is clear that we shall get no nearer to dealing with this problem of unfairness if it is left to the Government. But the combination of the narrowness of the clause and the fact that we have not even a commitment on the part of the official Opposition to seek to use the Speaker's Conference to bring about a reduction—which, presumably,


is its purpose—makes it impossible for me to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: I hope to speak very briefly, so I am not asking for interventions or help.
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) suggest that it was about time that we discussed this matter. As far as I remember, the Report of the Kilbrandon Commission was published later in 1973.

Mr. Heffer: In October 1973.

Mr. Ross: That is getting on for four year ago. Whose responsibility is it if the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire has not thought about it? We have had debates on Kilbrandon. We have had debates on this Bill, including a lengthy Second Reading debate. If anything was relevant, it was this subject. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had an opportunity, because Kilbrandon was the first real White Paper that we produced before we even came to a decision about functions and the rest of it, and we said from the Government side that we were opposed to any reduction in the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland and from Wales. That was said by the Government three years ago. I do not remember a host of Conservatives in Scotland declaring that this was wrong. I do not even remember a Liberal voice being raised in respect of it.
It is suggested that a Speaker's Conference would be a way out of the difficulty. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said that Scotland was always over-represented in the House. Does he know how many Members Scotland had after the Act of Union? I can tell him. It was 36. To suggest that we have always been over-represented is something of an exaggeration.
Why are we over-represented? It is for geographical reasons. There would be a great deal of complaint from Scotland if its Members were reduced in number by another 12 to get the parity of which a number of hon. Members have spoken.
The Orkney and Shetland constituency, for example, has about 22,000 electors. At present, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Energy, the Member for

Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) represents more than 90,000 electors. There is the same imbalance within Scotland. We have to remember, too, that the general mean for Scotland is created not by the occasional small constituency in a city, which can and will be sorted out by the Boundary Commission under its present remit, but by Western Isles, by Orkney and Shetland and by the Highland constituencies.
We must take into account the limitations upon travel in a constituency. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) does not conduct his election campaigns by car. He has to do it by boat. We have to appreciate the difficulties associated with these 71 seats.
I was surprised to hear the suggestion that parity should be looked at, quite apart from devolution. I do not believe that there is one Scottish Tory who would say "Let us, without devolution, reduce our representation by 12".
When it comes down to it, I feel that we have a proposal which does not make sense. There is no statutory obligation to refer this matter to a Speaker's Conference. The amendment says it "may" be referred. "May" is the operative word.
I have been a member of a Speaker's Conference, and I can tell the Committee that it is not one of the speediest establishments. For one thing, the Speaker is in the Chair, and his time is limited by the demands of this House. The last Speaker reckoned that whoever took the Chair at the Speaker's Conference, it should not be the Speaker. The agenda is laid down by the Prime Minister. I remember the arguments in the last Speaker's Conference about whether we should discuss proportional representation. We discovered we could not discuss it.
Suppose we did have a Speaker's Conference on this issue. What happens if such a conference comes to a conclusion? It has to come back to the House with its recommendation. If the number of Scottish representatives is to be reduced to 56, what happens? The Boundary Commission has to examine the situation, and then come back to the House for an Act of Parliament. If ever there was a recipe for delay, delay and more delay, this is it.
I agree with the Northern Ireland Members—they are unfairly treated. But that matter cannot be resolved in this way. Another way must be found. The argument is put forward that because Northern Ireland's representation was reduced as a result of Stormont, Scotland's representation should be reduced as a result of the Scottish Assembly. All I can say is that if the Irish accepted it in the 1920s, the Scots are not prepared to accept it in 1977.
Devolution will not decide the next General Election. That will be decided by the economy, unemployment, taxation and other things which will remain here at Westminster. On the basis of the old slogan "No taxation without representation", the number of Scottish Members should not be reduced, because taxation remains here. The same is true of many important aspects of what creates and will retain the unity of this country. From that point of view there is no argument for reducing Scottish representation.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The right hon. Member said that the next General Election would not be decided by devolution, and I agree with him. If this is the case, why all the rush? Why are the Government trying to rush this Bill through?

Mr. Ross: I have no intention of rushing it through. One may not win the election on devolution, but one could well lose it on that issue. The Conservatives have made such a hash of this. That stems from Front Bench ignorance. They have fought 40 elections on the basis of manifestos declaring themselves in favour of an elected Assembly in Scotland. Having done that they are now doing their best to oppose devolution. Although they will not win an election with devolution, they may well lose it without devolution.
The question of reducing the number of Scottish MPs, or of keeping 71 but not allowing them to vote on particular issues, is impracticable nonsense. English hon. Members are already second-class citizens. When I came to this House I thought that every Committee was supposed to be a reflection of the composition of the House. But not a single Member for an English, Welsh or Northern Irish constituency can go on the Scottish Grand Committee, and it was a

Tory Government that made that change in the rules. That has been the situation for a long time.
Let us consider the question of fairness in national terms. There are 71 Scottish MPs in a Parliament of 635 Members. I do not think that we have battled on with a sense of inferiority. I am quite content with the fact. When we get away from the national thinking about the composition of this House we shall get closer unity. The maintenance of the unity of this country depends on no tampering with the number of Scottish and Welsh Members at Westminster.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I think that the Leader of the House brought in many purely political considerations of an electoral character. The fact that the Committee is discussing this matter tonight is of lasting importance to the history of our country rather than to any question of political advantage. On the point of political advantage, both Front Benches have been disastrous in their approach to politics in endeavouring to play the tartan card which will rebound on them and Scotland with a worse curse than the nine of diamonds.
I have no great love of either Front Bench in this matter. The country is setting on a fairly disastrous course. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) clearly indicated— and it was made clear also by the Lord President's speech—whichever way we move creates further and wilder confusion. That is the alarming state in which the House finds itself. When my right hon. Friend referred to Gulliver reaching the kingdom of Laputa, he was absolutely right. We are attempting to achieve the impossible by a series of machinations and manoeuvres which no longer make political or constitutional sense.
Of course, the Members of the nationalist parties have a clear row to hoe. They have a clear course to follow. The others, however, the Liberal, Labour and Conservative Parties, who believe in the unity of the kingdom, are faced with a terrifying decision about Scotland. As such, the amendment is not of immense importance. The Lord President said that there would be two constitutional difficulties in accepting it. But it is the


spirit of the amendment which is important.
It is a very simple fact that the Scots and the Welsh—those who wish still to retain membership of the House of Commons—will find themselves on their present representation with 107 Members of Parliament who cannot even discuss their own local affairs which are being discussed by their representatives in Cardiff or Edinburgh. We saw that with our Northern Irish friends when there existed a Parliament in Belfast. They could not discuss their internal affairs, but they were able to discuss and vote on not merely national matters but all those which build up the life of the country—housing, education, or whatever.
1.30 a.m.
As the Lord President rightly said, we cannot have first-class and second-class Members of Parliament, but that is what we shall be creating. The moment will come—Speaker's Conference or no Speaker's Conference, and whichever Government are in office—when the English say "Enough is enough." That should concern those representing Scots and Welsh seats and Scots and Welsh Members for English seats. As a Scotsman, I feel very strongly about the Scottish interest.
It is right that the Scots should have rather more Members of Parliament than they deserve on a purely mechanical basis, because there are other factors. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said the other day that there should be special representation for places such as Orkney and Shetland and the Highlands. There is a belief in a sort of nationality which is a Scottish thing, and that merits a special representation. But once we have the absurd fact of 107 Members from Wales and Scotland sitting here after there are Assemblies, the whole cause of special Scottish and Welsh representation will not just dis-appear but will swing in precisely the opposite direction. Far from such representation being welcome, it will lead to hostility, upset, discord, confusion and eventually—Speaker's Conference or not—to demands from the English Members that there should be a reduction.

Mr. Dalyell: Knowing the Conservative Party as he does, does the right hon. Gentleman think it conceivable that such pressures could be resisted—supposing there were a Conservative Government and the Bill had gone through—and that the number of Scots would not be reduced?

Mr. Fraser: It is not for me to speak for my Front Bench or the Conservative Party. I am just saying that in the nature of things, whether we have a Labour or a Conservative Government, the pressure must mount for a reduction in the numbers of Scottish and Welsh Members, as sure as night follows day. That is why I so much regret from the Government's point of view that for some reason the Lord President was unable to accept the amendment. He should have accepted it because it is merely an indication of what is to come. The Committee should divide on the amendment, because it is vital that we should show what we believe to be inevitable, making clear to the people of Scotland and Wales what they are bound to lose if the Bill is passed.

Mr. John Mendelson: I rise to oppose the amendment and to express the hope that the Committee will not pass it, if it is put to the vote, although it has led to a very important and very useful debate. I find it illogical that opponents of the Bill should recommend that the amendment be passed. I should have thought that all those who are agreed on the extreme seriousness of the legislation would not want to confuse the issue and would wish the country to be consistently and constantly informed of the main purpose, with no seeking to mix party advantage in any shape or form with the purposes of those who do not wish this legislation to pass. Therefore, it seems to me a most inappropriate moment to revive a debate which must inevitably, even if that is not intended by everybody who might support the amendment, bring in the question of party advantage.
I oppose the amendment and similar amendments because I do not wish the representation of Scotland and of Wales in the House of Commons to be reduced. I believe the representation is justified. It has enriched this place. Indeed, I recall what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about that representation having been increased. From the beginning it


has made an important contribution to the work of Parliament for the good of the kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mendelson: No. I have only just started I have not really said anything yet. I knew that I should carry general support on that matter. It is a good reason for the hon. and learned Gentleman waiting until I have further advanced my argument before interrupting me.
If it is generally accepted that Scottish and Welsh representation has enriched the work of Parliament, our main purpose ought to be to maintain it. I submit that the Government should consider twice before proceeding with this legislation lest, by so doing, they endanger the future representation of Scotland and of Wales in the House of Commons.
If the Opposition were to persuade the Committee to pass the amendment, we should be in a completely different situation. We should achieve not a warning, but a decision—a wrong-headed decision—based on a political manoeuvre. [Hon. Members: "No."] Having advanced that argument, it is my duty to try to prove it.

Mr. Brittan: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
Why do I maintain that argument? Because both during and before this debate voices have been raised advancing different reasons why a Speaker's Conference should be set up and why, without a Speaker's Conference, there should be a change in the representation of Scotland and of Wales in the House of Commons.
One argument has been that, whether we have the Bill at all, there should be a Speaker's Conference to reconsider the matter. The other argument advanced from the Opposition Front Bench tonight has been that, because of the Bill, there should be a Speaker's Conference to consider the representation of Scotland and of Wales in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), speaking for the Liberal Party, said that he did not wish

to support the amendment for a Speaker's Conference but wanted a reduction in the representation of Scotland and of Wales in the House.
Taking all those reasons together, how can the country conclude that the purpose of those supporting the amendment is to avoid the dangers involved in the Bill? The conclusion is bound to be that party interests are involved.

Mr. Brittan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever reasons may be given at other times for supporting a Speaker's Conference to consider these matters, what has been proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and my hon. Friends is an amendment to the Bill? If as the hon. Gentleman wishes, the Bill does not reach the statute book, the Speaker's Conference proposed by my right hon. Friend will simply not take place. If so, the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman are unreal. There is no justification for saying that the presentation of a Speaker's Conference is in any way inconsistent with opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Mendelson: That would be a true and consistent argument if one of the other sources of opinion to which I have referred were an academic outside politics who had nothing to do with the Conservative Party. But the other source which I have quoted is the Leader of the Opposition, and that puts a completely different complexion on the term "political manoeuvre" which I used earlier.
When we turn to the argument advanced from the Liberal Benches, of course I agree that if somebody wants to turn this country into a federal country, he will advance the argument that was advanced by the Liberal spokesman. That is also the explanation why the two nationalist parties in the House are supporting the Bill so fervently, and why they are in favour of reducing the influence of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House, as a prelude to having them removed from this House completely. If that were done, they would then argue that no Member of the House of Commons should have any say in the affairs of Scotland at all, which is a further step towards complete separatism. Those are their tactics, and they ought to make


the Government pause, if the Government were genuinely attempting to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.
Returning to the subject of the Speaker's Conference, I am opposed to this amendment, also because it is not a useful amendment in its purpose. Any right hon. or hon. Member who has sat on a Speaker's Conference—and I have sat on two in recent years—know that we have been given some rather idealistic and unintentionally misleading descriptions of the nature or the animal and its workings. First, the Speaker's Conference is not as neutral as has been suggested. It is a much more political body than has been suggested so far. Its composition is political. Its debates are bound to be political because its members are Members of Parliament. How could one expect Members of Parliament suddenly to turn themselves into pure academics and not carry on political debate?
Moreover, the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference carry no guarantee of final acceptance. One hon. Gentleman who interrupted the Liberal spokesman asked him to mention a single instance where the recommendations of a Speaker's Conference had not been accepted by the House. He gave the impression that no such examples ever occur. I could give him a very important example. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for being mistaken. He may have read the wrong text-book, because textbooks are often misleading.
I will let the House into a secret. At one of the Speaker's Conferences on which I sat, I moved a motion that the voting age should be reduced from 21 to 18. My motion had three supporters on the first vote, and we had only four people supporting the motion throughout the long debate in that Speaker's Conference on the fairly important subject of establishing a new voting age. It might be argued that this was even more important historically than the number of Members sitting in the House in certain circumstances, or that it was at least as important. Right up to the end of that Speaker's Conference there were never more than four supporters of my motion, and the majority recommendation went the other way.
The recommendations were then reported and considered by the Cabinet, and when the matter was put before the House there was a known Cabinet recommendation. The House then debated the subject, and what had been the minority recommendation of the Speaker's Conference miraculously transformed itself into the majority view of the House of Commons, perfectly democratically. People argued about it, discussed it, and there was debate in newspapers, journals, universities and political parties.
What I am suggesting is that we are not dealing with an amendment which suggests that this highly and explosively political matter should be put into the hands of a calm, academic assembly of experts, which was more or less the suggestion made by the Opposition Front Bench.
The Opposition attitude was that we should leave it to a Speaker's Conference to come forward with calmly considered, erudite recommendations far removed from the explosive turmoil of the political market place and after due consideration tell us what was best for everyone concerned. That is poppycock. There would be a recommendation just as political as the recommendtaion made by the Opposition Front Bench tonight. If that is so, why not do it in that way? If it is a political recommendation we are dealing with, I say to my right hon. Friend that whatever we might argue coldly and reasonably, and whatever the fate of this amendment—and there are many right hon. and hon. Members who, for different reasons, will combine to oppose it—there is no implication in the fate of this amendment that the arguments we have listened to will not be powerfully reflected in the constituencies.
1.45 a.m.
I warn my right hon. Friend that I am convinced that nothing said by him, by me or by others will carry half as much weight as the other arguments we have heard. Once we remove some of the essential functions that we have so far given to all Members of Parliament from those Scottish and Welsh Members so that they cannot be regarded as the equal of other hon. Members, however much my right hon. Friend's convincing rhetoric may assure us, the demand will grow for something special to be done. If there is added to this realisation the


fact that for good historic and other reasons such areas may be somewhat over-represented in purely numerical terms, the demand will grow and it will be asked why they should have even more Members than the rest of us. The demand will become irresistible. It is one of the essential weaknesses of my right hon. Friend's argument.
I did not see what answer my right hon. Friend could give to those who asked what could be done about this feeling of inequality once functions have been removed from hon. Members here to Cardiff and Edinburgh. It was a waste of time to put the question to him about seven times. The only proper answer is that if we want devolution we must agree to this reduction in the influence of Members from Scotland and Wales. The problem which remains is not whether a Member from an English constituency will be able to introduce a Private Member's Bill which will have the same degree of influence on Welsh or Scottish affairs. We do not do that now. I would not dream of introducing a Private Member's Bill dealing with the affairs of Caernarvon. The question is whether one of my hon. Friends from a Scottish constituency would be in the same position to introduce a Private Member's Bill dealing with the internal affairs of Scotland.
I am afraid that the answer would be equally in the negative. That is the dilemma. An hon Member would be able to introduce such a Bill but would this be regarded as a place where he ought to do so after a few years have elapsed? The Commitee can discuss this calmly, without shouting and trying to make things more difficult for Ministers. But my right hon. Friend ought to face this and realise that while there is an element of political manoeuvering involved, the dangers have been shown all too clearly. My right hon. Friend ought to add this to the many reasons that might lead the Government to reconsider their attitude.
The Government want to safeguard representation of Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons. If they think that such continued representation is one of the guarantees of the continued permanent unity of the kingdom, it may be necessary to abandon the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Mrs. Butler. It is generally known that at 1.50 a.m. the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary often begs to move progress. I am not myself confessing to being tired, but we are discussing an important issue and 16 hon. Members appear to wish to speak. To continue at this time and then to ask the Lord President of the Council to reply when he must he dog-tired is a nonsense. It brings the Committee into disrepute and we should report progress.

Mr. Grieve: I am in complete agreement with the closing words of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I have made clear my views about the Bill for a long time. I spoke against the proposals in January last year and nothing that has happened since has shaken my conviction that the proposals are likely to lead to the disintegration of the United Kingdom if they are implemented.
If the people of Scotland want devolution that must be conceded, but I am not convinced by any evidence that has been brought before the House at any stage of our debates that that desire prevails in Scotland. For that reason I would have liked to see a referendum before the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Sproat: To talk of the people of Scotland is misleading. The people of Scotland are spread all over the United Kingdom, not just over the border. If we are to have a referendum, surely it is unjust that it should be confined to the people who happen to reside north of the border and to exclude those, such as hon. Members, who work south of the border.

Mr. Grieve: Since I speak as a Scot who lives south of the border, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). I was using the expression compendiously as we must in our debates. Let me use another expression—those of the British people at present residing in Scotland. I reside in England but I have Scottish roots. I am proud of the United Kingdom and its achievements and of the partnership in it of all members of the British races. For that reason I am totally opposed to the Bill. Its passage will be a disaster for the United Kingdom.
I turn to the representation of Scotland and of Wales should the Bill be passed.


Even now Scotland and Wales are over-represented. There is a case—although I reject it—for a reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh representatives at Westminster, as there is an even stronger case for an increase in the number of Northern Ireland hon. Members here. But I totally reject any reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh hon. Members. Over-representation of Scotland and Wales, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) just said, is a small price—if one regards it as a price —to pay for the unity of the United Kingdom. It is a small price to pay for the proper representation in this House of distant, scattered parts of the United Kingdom where communication is difficult.
If we can maintain the unity of the United Kingdom and defeat the Bill I hope to see the continued representation of Scotland and of Wales as it is at present. But, if the Bill is passed into law there will be an ever-increasing demand for a reduction in the Welsh and Scottish representation here.
The reasons are obvious. That part of the British people who live in England will regard it as totally unfair that their representatives should have no voice in a large part of the affairs of Scotland and Wales but that over-represented Scotland and Wales should continue to have, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom—the imperial Parliament—a voice in affairs which, in such a situation, concerned England alone.
The point was very well made by a fellow Scot—my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser)—who asked: how will that situation be met? One way of meeting it would be to exclude Scottish and Welsh Members sitting here from decisions in connection with a certain variety of Bills. How could that be done? Only by a commission that would decide whether a Bill came into a category in which the voices of Scottish and Welsh Members were not to be heard, or their votes were not to be counted. It is almost inconceivable. It would be so clumsy as to be impossible.

Mr. Dalyell: How, also, would it be decided whether the Scots should or should not vote on procedural matters—

for instance, on timetable motions or guillotine motions?

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Member. I have adumbrated only some of the difficulties. I shall not refer to them all, because if I did I should take up more time than I desire to do at 2 o'clock in the morning, when some of my hon Friends and hon. Members on the Government Benches have constructive contributions to make.
This House is concerned not only with legislation; it is concerned with the affairs of the whole of the United Kingdom. The problem would arise, in every kind of business with which the House deals, whether the Scottish and Welsh Members were to take part. Therefore, there would be an overwhelming demand from that part of the British people living in England that the number of Scottish and Welsh Members should be reduced. There is a precedent—the precedent of Northern Ireland, which, for a long time, until the dissolution of Stormont, was accepted as a perfectly normal way of dealing with the situation.
There would be a demand for a reduction in Scottish and Welsh representation not to parity with English representation but to numbers lower than parity with English representation. There would be a demand for its reduction to the sort of scale that the British people living in Northern Ireland—I stick to my formulae —have had since 1920. I believe that that would be a tragic and sad thing for the unity of the United Kingdom; it would merely be one aspect of the deterioration and the destruction of that unity that would proceed from this Bill.
It is one of the prime objections to the whole of the Bill, and I am sorry that some of those who see it in that light cannot see their way to vote for my right hon. Friend's new clause. I accept at once that that new clause is not perfect; it could not be, within the narrow rules of order that pertain to this Bill. But it draws attention to the difficulty and enunciates it; it provides one way, at any rate, of dealing with it and it will satisfy some of the criticism that has already arisen throughout the provinces of England with regard to this matter. It is criticism that already exists. It is being heard and voiced in the newspapers and in the constituencies.
2 a.m.
I regret, therefore, that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) cannot support the amendment, because the amendment is the only way that we have before us at present of dealing with that is a fundamental objection to the Bill and one of the great difficulties that arises out of it, and which, as I say again, demonstrates how dangerous the Bill is for the unity of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, I for one am happy to be here tonight to support my right hon. Friend on the new clause in the Lobby.
Thank you, Sir Stephen.

Mr. Kinnock: I have been giving some thought to the proposed new clause. I have come to the conclusion that we ought to dub it the "I told you so" proposal. Throughout all our debates in the House of Commons, and in debates in the Labour movement, in public and in private, the warning has been repeatedly given by those who have had reservations about the whole of the devolution prosals, that we would soon reach this day—I think that most of us hoped that we would reach it rather earlier in the day than we have on this occasion—and that in whatever form the proposition was initially put, it would ultimately end in very straightforward political terms with a Conservative proposition that the number of seats that are provided from Scotland and from Wales should be reduced.
Stripped of all the technical discussion about the appropriateness, or lack of it, of the Speaker's Conference in dealing with these matters, or in dealing with the matter pre-referendum or post-referendum, I say that my main reason for objecting to the Bill tonight—Opposition Members will understand it—is that it will lose seats in Scotland and Wales, and the direct consequence of losing those seats will be to lose more Labour seats than Conservative seats. That will give us less frequent Labour Governments. God help us—they have been infrequent enough in any case, and I am against having infrequent Labour Governments.
Therefore, I put the matter in very straifhtforward, pork barrel terms. Anyone in the House who holds a party card, of no matter which party, will understand exactly what I mean when I say

that we ought to protect that very direct interest.
There are, of course, also other interests—the interests of the people of Scotland and Wales. Without any hint of condescension or paternalism, I say that if we were to accept the idea that the number of representatives in the House of Commons from Scotland and Wales should be reduced, by whatever process or procedure, whether it be the Speaker's Conference or anything else, that would be directly contrary to the interests of the people of Scotland and Wales.
I think that there is only one section of opinion in the House of Commons that would disagree with that assertion—the nationalists. They are much more interested in the enhancement of their own political futures than in the future of the people of Scotland and Wales, otherwise they would not be promoting the stupid idea of separatism in any case.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is it not probably significant that on this crucial matter some of the representatives of Wales in the House of Commons, Plaid Cymru Members, have chosen to be absent almost throughout the debate? They clearly do not think that it is a matter of importance to Wales that Wales is represented in this place.

Mr. Kinnock: I have to admit that that consideration had flashed across my mind, but I thought that, in all charity, I would not refer to it. However, now that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, it must become a matter for the record. I hope that Welsh National Party Members, who are so enthusiastic about the Bill—indeed, they lead the enthusiasm for the Bill in the Principality—will do penance tomorrow night and on subsequest occasions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's chastisement will encourage them to do so.
The other reason, apart from the political consideration, that I wish to sustain the present numbers is that the people of Scotland and Wales will continue to have a vested interest in maintaining whatever power and influence they have here, whether or not we have devolution. Under these proposals, not only will substantial lists of subjects remain, in the Lord President's words, the sole concern of this House and not that of the Assemblies, but even the Assemblies themselves will


be governed in their financial powers by the resolution of this place. It is vital, therefore, that the maximum influence be brought to bear in the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Scotland and Wales in the deliberations over the block grant which will determine their standards of living and that therefore the number of seats for those countries be maintained.

Mr. Fairbairn: What amount of powers in Scotland would have to be devolved before the hon. Gentleman would take the view that it was not important that the same number should have the power to control what remain here?

Mr. Kinnock: There is only one answer to that—in the event of Scotland and Wales becoming independent sovereign States, there would be no place for their representatives here. Short of that, in the very nature of the devolutionary relationship, so long as we sustain this idiotic idea of the delegation of powers from this House and simultaneously attempt to sustain the unity of the Kingdom while permitting the legislative diversity of the Kingdom, there will always be a case for trying to maximise the influence which can be brought to bear on our deliberations from each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
But the main reason for sustaining the present numbers is that power will continue to reside at Westminster—insufficient power, challenged power, fragmented power, undermined power, disunited power, continually conflicting power, but still power, needing the maximum authority and pressure from Scotland and Wales to try to mould affairs to the advantage of the people whom I and my compatriots in Wales and Scotland represent. That will find agreement way outside the borders of Wales and Scotland and well beyond the boundaries of the Labour Party.
But the consideration must arise, is that a practicable way in which to regard these affairs? My right hon. Friend has said that the Government do not believe that representation in this House should be changed by devolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that the Labour Party would always oppose the reduction of numbers

here. But there is a force of logic about the argument that if the responsibilities of this House are devolved —which is only a euphemism for "reduced" in this context—it is democratic, in logic, to reduce the number of representatives as well. I can envisage many situations in which we shall have to oppose propositions from those with different vested interests and perspectives. We shall have to oppose their propositions in respect of the appropriateness of the number of representatives we now have from Scotland and Wales. We shall probably have to oppose them at this time in the morning on future occasions.
We shall sloganise and pontificate about the necessity of sustaining the numbers from Scotland and Wales. We shall put our hands on our hearts and say that we never intended that Wales and Scotland should he politically emasculated as a consequence of devolution. But the fact remains, when all the sums are done about who pays public expenditure bills for Scotland and Wales and how Government majorities are constituted in the House, that there will be those who will be paying the bills in England, perhaps of different political opinions from the majority opinion in the House of Commons, who will require that the House of Commons, in fairness, logic and democracy, changes the total number of representatives from Scotland and Wales.
We can protest as much as we like, but because of what is happening in the Bill, and as a consequence of the Bill if it becomes an Act, the response to nationalism will make nationalists of us all. Those who have never given the slightest consideration to the way in which money is being spent and where it is being spent will begin to ask who is spending it and who is responsible for spending it. In those circumstances they will be forced to allow that consideration to dominate their political perspective and to dominate their consideration of the way in which the working of the House of Commons is carried out. It is a consideration that will dominate the attitude that they have to and the relationships that they enjoy with those from other parts of the country.
They are the floodgates that will open. I do not think I am being terribly pessimistic or exaggerating the situation. This


is the very stuff of politics. This is the very stuff of representation. We can try to make ourselves remote, insular and wise about these affairs, we can say that we consider that it will not be to the benefit of all the people of the United Kingdom to disentangle and fragment, but there might be a situation in which the pressures will not be coming from inside the House of Commons to change the number of representatives from Scotland and Wales. I think that the pressure will come from within but it may be that it will not.
For how long can the House of Commons sustain itself as a democratic forum without responding to the pressures from outside? Those pressures, without any particular meanness or malevolence towards the people of Scotland and Wales, will most certainly develop. Indeed, they are developing now. They are with us, for example, in what we call the backlash speeches of some Opposition Members. I do not blame them for making those speeches. They are adopting what is for them a novel attitude. We are seeing the drawing up of new perspectives that have never before been applied to the people of Wales and Scotland.
We are seeing developments in Government legislation. I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today—no one can accuse my right hon. Friend of trying to do down the interests of the Welsh people as he is the representative of a Welsh constituency—about the regional employment premium and he referred to the needs of the inner cities. I am sure that that debate would be taking place in any case. The contest for shares in our national resources and for assistance and inducement to industry would be taking place in any case. But it is a sample in this new assortment, this new allocation, this new dispersement of the nation's resources, of the situation that we are bound to see arising as a consequence of the changes made by devolution and the new conflicts of interest between the industrial and rural areas, the north and the south and the Scots, the Welsh and the English.
We already have samples and examples of those considerations. For instance, an example is to be found in the Water Equalisation Bill that was discussed last Monday week. I do not blame certain

Members representing the teeming cities of England for some of the attitudes that they adopted. Indeed, I have seen these attitudes rehearsed—I hope that they will take warning from this—in my 16 to 20 years' experience of Welsh nationalism. In any crisis or difficulty it is a quite natural human development to turn in upon oneself, to start chanting slogans such as "London First" as others have chanted "Wales First" or "Scotland First". It is taken into politics right off the football terraces. Again, it is done without malevolence or maliciousness. It is seen as the simple enactment of duty on the part of Members of Parliament for certain English cities. It is an attitude that was displayed by some hon. Members in the view that they took of the new arrangements for the financing of our water services.
These new developments and new divisions are being rehearsed even as we talk about this Bill—and the Bill can do no other than bring that whole drama to a final and disastrous act for the people of Scotland and Wales and consequently, therefore, for the people of England.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. [Laughter.] I have been here for at least five minutes. So far as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman started speaking at one minute past two o'clock. The time to get over from Norman Shaw building is five minutes, and I came as soon as I could. I have been following his argument with great interest, as I always do. He seems to be arguing that the conflicts that he alleges are developing within the United Kingdom are new conflicts about resources and that somehow the political recognition of those conflicts in institutions will exacerbate them. Is it not better, if there are conflicts and arguments about resources and their allocation, that they should be resolved within political institutions?

Mr. Kinnock: I am all in favour of resolving conflicts, and doing so democratically by argument within political institutions, by using majority opinion and by coming to conclusive votes. I am not in favour of the representation of particular difficulties as being characteristic of membership of a nation rather than membership of a class.
Another way I dislike of resolving conflicts is seeking to gain support for the purpose of resolving them on nationalistic grounds. I have said that these are not new conflicts or disputes; they would have existed, probably, in the clash of priorities for limited resources in any case. But in this Bill we have a new source of conflict, a new source of division, a new perspective superimposed, and it means that the unconscious generosity of people to those dependent on them as footers of their bills may be turned into a conscious parsimony. We in Wales cannot but suffer from that.
It is not cowardice on my part or sycophancy towards the English or fear of the future that makes me contemplate that result. It is more the fact that I have 12 per cent. unemployment in my constituency. So has the hon Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). Indeed, he should know well enough that his constituency even more than mine is kept afloat on public expenditure, and that the bill is footed not from Welsh pockets but from British pockets on the basis of need for his constituency.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: Shut up. I have listened to enough nationalist nonsense. These are facts. I am at least as good a Welshman as the hon. Gentleman is. We are having visited upon us in Wales, because of the ludicrous pursuit of a separatist answer and an even more ludicrous attempt to offset the pressures of separatism, new jealousies and new divisions—and they will cost us thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of pounds, and all the conflict, all the divisions and all the sorrow which comes from a nation with even more limited resources that cannot even find the means of meeting its most elementary aspirations. That is the future as a consequence of this. It therefore means that the division as a consequence of the changes upon this House is not the only division with which the hon. Member for Merioneth and myself will have to deal. There will be divisions inside Wales as well.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that this is the best way to keep the United Kingdom together. The main sustenance in the devolutionary argument is that such are the threats and

strains imposed on the unity of the United Kingdom in the novel aspirations of the people of Scotland and Wales over the past decade that we must find some means of national self-expression in the form of Assemblies with varying degrees of powers in order to quench the thirst for self-determination and for bringing government nearer to them.
But built into the Government's attempt at unity are new and bitter seeds of disunity. There are invitations to new jealousies and invitations to people to draw new maps in their minds and new borders in their consciences. That cannot be a source of unity in this kingdom.
I do not have a Unionist's interest in unity. For me it has been profitable for the people of the valleys that I represent. I differ to that extent from Unionists in other parts of the House. But the fact is that by any criterion the people of my valleys have benefited considerably from a united kingdom.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Since the economic history of Wales during the last 50 years can be characterised by a steady drain on its population through emigration, would my hon. Friend not agree that this at least justifies some dissolution of the present set-up?

Mr. Kinnock: I do not think that the immigration into Wales in the previous 50 years—which sucked people out of the bogs of Ireland or, in my own case, from the slums of Scotland, or Shropshire or Spain or Italy—took place in order to endorse the previous system. I think it took place because of jobs. When that system failed—this is the source of my hon. Friend's grievance—they were not drained out. My hon. Friend has a longer knowledge than I have. He is a little older than I am, but I do not think he can teach me a lot because every member of my family has had to leave Wales at some time or another.
The resolution of our problems is to have a change in the system that put the problem there in the first place. Union with the remainder of the United Kingdom is not relevant to those problems one iota. My hon. Friend should know that well.
My hon. Friend will say that distance, insularity, the superciliousness of the


unitary State and over-centralised Government have contributed to this problem. So they might, but the abyss of depression in Wales at present is such that in the foreseeable future we have a vested interest in sustaining the present relationship and getting what we can out of it in order to get ourselves out of the trough rather than threatening our very lifeline. That is no exaggeration.
One of my hon. Friends said that I did not have to look in a crystal ball because I could see it in the book. In this case, the "book" is the Amendment Paper, and New Clause 36 says that there is a feeling amongst Members of the House of Commons that a Speaker's Conference should be convened to look at whether the representation is fair.
I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends again. On the basis of the distribution of votes in English, Welsh and Scottish constituencies, if we go only on numbers, at the moment it is not fair. If we disregard the generally charitable attitude of the Opposition Front Bench to the need for representation as we have it now in Wales and Scotland and we consider for a moment the fact that resentments will arise, in this book—not in a crystal ball—we see the prospects of losing political power for the Labour Party, of losing political influence for our nation, and of losing all the claims through need, on the resources of Britain that we can make now. Of course we should make more claims. Of course we should get more. But if we cannot get more, there is a good argument for saying that we should not go for less.

Mrs. Knight: I have not been present during all the debates on this Bill, but I have read carefully the Hansard reports of all those that I have missed. Anyone reading those debates will have been struck by the extraordinary number of speeches from Government Back Benchers expressing the kinds of views that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
The fact that so many Government supporters alone—apart from a great many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—feel so strongly, so passionately and, I believe, so rightly about this Bill must surely give the Government pause. Surely even they

must see that this measure, so roundly condemned by their own supporters, cannot possibly be passed in its present form and certainly not without very much more careful thought being given to the fairness of representation in the House.
In this debate, we have had moments of frustration and moments of great sadness. One moment of great sadness came as we listened to the Leader of the House finally destroying the last shreds of his once glittering reputation as an unholder of the constitution. The frustration came when he was either unable or unwilling to say in clear terms why the amendment would not be accepted, and, when perfectly logical arguments were put to him, he did not even begin to answer them. He was like a man who says "Black is white" and who, when challenged, says "It must be, because white is black". It was a sad moment for us as we listened to the right hon. Gentleman.
Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman cannot grasp the fact that devolution affects fundamentally the case on representation. He suggests that we need not bother about representation now, that it has nothing to do with the Bill, and that it must be discussed at another time. But the whole crux of the Bill is the question of representation. Devolution is about representation or it is about nothing. What is more, unless there is fairness in this matter, there will be a very quick sighting of the bitterness about which we heard from the hon. Member for Bedwellty.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) made it clear that he was very concerned about the fact that the power of Welsh Members of Parliament was likely to be hampered after the Bill had been passed. He asked whether it would be hampered. Of course it will.
2.30 a.m.
Much play has been made this evening about the question of the referendum, and people having a say. Will the referendum be extended to the ordinary English people in the United Kingdom? It will be extremely unfair if it applies only to Scotland and Wales. I very much take the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his strong and powerful speech.—[Interruptions]

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. Hon. Members below the Gangway are indulging in conversations which they think are sotto voce. I should tell them that these conversations are much more voce than sotto.

Mrs. Knight: One of the reasons for my strong opposition to the Bill is that I am afraid that the gross unfairness under which Ulster labours will be perpetuated by the provisions in this measure. In Ulster there is no local government, no Assembly, and only a handful of Members are represented in Westminster. On the other hand, in Scotland and Wales there is full local government representation, an over-abundance of Members in Westminster, and now there is to be an Assembly as well. How can it be fair that one part of the United Kingdom is treated with such scant regard, while two other parts are blessed by special arrangements which others can never expect to receive?

Mr. Robertson: Would the hon. Lady not agree that any unfairness that there might be in Northern Ireland is there in any case? Is she arguing that it is all right to have unfairness as long as we do not have this Bill?

Mrs. Knight: Of course that is not my argument, and it never has been. I have tried to argue the case for more fairness for Ulster. It is a shame and a blot on us all that the unfairness exists. It is also relevant, when we are discussing fairness of representation, to point out that we appear to be saying that all parts are equal; some are more equal than others; and Northern Ireland is not equal at all. That is quite wrong and unfair.
I wonder whether there is any specific reason for the way in which New Clause 36 is framed. I would support the amendment all the way, but I am bound to say that the new clause is grossly unfair in that it speaks only of Members representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies. It may well be that there is some specific point about that, and that it was not possible to include Ulster. If that is the case, I want to hear it from my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, because it is a point of considerable importance.
I am against this Bill. If it is to get through at all—and I pray God that it will not—at least it might be bettered by the

adoption of amendments, particularly the one before us this evening. I support the amendment.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: To those of us who have followed the debates on devolution, the curious thing about tonight is that the difficulty we are encountering is not a new discovery. Two years ago tomorrow this House had the first general debate on the Government's proposals on devolution, and many of us who took part in that debate pointed out precisely this difficulty.
In retrospect it is rather strange that in the two years since then we have trundled so far down the road to devolution without at any stage attempting to anticipate or evade this boulder which lies in our path. I remember, having raised this matter at a meeting outside this Chamber, being advised at the time not to draw attention to this difficulty because were I to do so it might call into question the whole operation. However, here we are. The boulder has failed to recede and instead has become that much more concrete an obstacle.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recollect that the now enobled Lord Glenamara, alias Mr. Ted Short, was told time and time again precisely of this difficulty? Would he listen? Not at all.

Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend knows, I was present on some of those occasions, and I can only say that I and other hon. Members are looking forward to the solution that he proposes in the other place.

Mr. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend not realise that this situation exists and has nothing to do with the devolution Bill or devolution? It is based entirely on the question of population. Let us consider the calculations made to determine a Highland seat or the seats in Orkney and Shetland. If each vote had equal weight in Scotland we should have to abolish the Highlands and the Islands seats.

Mr. Cook: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to expand this point in his contribution to the debate. We might say that we have found the position of his party in the course of this Committee stage to be curiously quiescent. We would anticipate a lengthy speech


from my hon. Friend in which he might amplify some of his points. However I must say to him that on the basis of the urban seats, we in Scotland are overrepresented in terms purely of population. That should cause no embarrassment because in a centralised system it is justifiable for the peripheral areas to be over-represented.
As was said two years ago, and by hon. Members on every occasion which has presented itself to them since, the position of Scottish Members after the Bill becomes law will be indefensible unless some action is taken to remedy the position. I say that as a Scottish Member and as one who might aspire to be a Scots Member after devolution has arrived.
We have argued for devolution on the basis that it would be right for the Scottish people to decide their own policies through election to their own Assembly. If that is logical and right for the Scots, we have to concede it to the English, and it would be wrong for those of us from Scotland to seek to interfere in English domestic affairs after that watershed has been reached. We have only to cast our minds back to the controversial nights of last summer and autumn to see how many fruitful occasions there will be for conflict and friction to arise over that precise point.
However, I find no logic in the proposal before us in the shape of the amendment or the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), in an impassioned and eloquent speech, advanced the argument that it was logical that representation for Scotland and Wales should be reduced, pari passu with the amount of Scottish and Welsh business in this House. I see no logic in that. If it is wrong for 71 Scots to vote on English affairs, it is wrong for one Scot to vote on such matters. One does not resolve that anomaly by arbitrarily lopping off a given number of Scottish seats. Those Scottish Members will be participating in matters in which they have no constituency interest, no mandate and no representative powers.
Why do we pursue this non sequitur at all? The only reason that it occurs to us is that it has been the position with Northern Ireland ever since Stormont was established. To say that a given

situation applies in the case of Northern Ireland does not make it logical. It is an odd irony that so often in these devolution debates we turn for our parallels, analogies and similes to the sad and tragic experience of Northern Ireland. That can hardly be expected to help us on the basis of any firm success that has been secured in the past.
The other thing that I find curious about our debate is that those who have argued for the amendment, for this remedy, have also claimed to be most in favour of preserving the Union. The one visible, clear, demonstrable sign of the Union of the United Kingdom is the representation in this Parliament of the Scots and the Welsh. It is curious to seek to strengthen that Union by seeking to cut that representation in this House. So long as we remain a Union, so long as we remain a united Parliament, it is defensible that the periphery should be over-represented.
It is clear to me that the strategic, vital decisions affecting my country—on the economy, fiscal affairs, energy, industry—will continue to be taken here. I see no case for reducing the representation of my country on those matters simply because housing, education and health have been devolved to another centre. There is no logic in that proposition, either.
However, if we say that there is no logic in cutting representation, how are we to find a way out of the difficulty? I find a certain attraction in New Clause 35, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Henderson), which enunciates the principle that after devolution the Scottish and Welsh Members should not participate in certain classified English matters. Many speakers have poured scorn on that idea.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are discussing not New Clause 35 but Amendment No. 575 and New Clause 36.

Mr. Cook: I accept your correction, Sir Stephen, but perhaps I may be permitted to answer the many points made in this argument. I shall seek to do so without further reference to New Clause 35.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the argument, in order to dismiss it, that we could have a two-tier


membership of this House. I do not see the difficulty that other hon. Members have perceived in that. It may be that I have not paid the appropriate attention to English domestic affairs, but I can recall no time in the past three years when I have spoken in a debate on a purely English domestic matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "But the hon. Gentleman voted."] I was coming to that point. I could happily give up the right and entitlement to be called to vote at the end of the debate without being conscious of being an inferior or second-class citizen.
Nor do I see the difficulty suggested by my right hon. Friend the Lord President that it would be difficult to define—

Mr. Heffer: Is not my hon. Friend now being illogical? I agree with him up to a point, but he could not avoid being approached by the Whips on, say, an education matter, and being cajoled to vote on it. It might well affect my constituency. It would be no good his saying "I shall not vote" and opting out. One cannot do that here. What my hon. Friend is really saying is that he wants to be a first-class citizen and that some of us will be the second-class citizens, because he will be able to vote on our issues and we shall not be able to say one word or vote on any issue affecting education or anything else in Scotland.

Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I may be able to help him on that point.
Before my hon. Friend intervened I was dealing with the question of defining purely English domestic matters. We have a process for defining what is a Scottish domestic issue. There is a process for certifying such Bills. Only once in the past three years have we had any dispute on such certification. That was as a result of the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). Once in three years is not a high incidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) touched on the raw nerve. The problem is not defining the issues. It is that as one moves from the situation in which the whole House may vote to the other, in which only part may vote, one may well move from one political balance to the other. This is where the Whips come in and where the

pressure to which my hon. Friend refers arises.
2.45 a.m.
Candidly, there are two aspects to my hon. Friend's question. First, I believe that it would be morally indefensible to vote in such a situation. I do not believe that we could for ever maintain a position in which Scots and Welsh Members vote on, say, English education and pay beds when the English cannot vote on Scottish and Welsh equivalents.
Secondly, the question can be put the other way round. We shall not find 107 men and women of principle and integrity who will be prepared to come here week after week, year after year, and do precisely that. All the pressure from the Whips will avail them nothing. In the last analysis, there will be no way in which any Whip will be able to put pressure on a Scottish Member through a Scottish constituency party because that Member failed to participate in an English debate or vote.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to his point.

Mr. Heffer: It will affect the Government's majority.

Mr. Cook: That has been self-evident for three years. Some of us have been trying to tell my hon. Friend and others about that problem. If Scottish and Welsh Members are not to be able to vote on English matters, that raises the precise problem of the political balance.
What is the sole, logical, clear way out of the problem? The only way to resolve the anomaly is to get to the heart of the matter. At the bottom of what we are proposing to do lies one colossal anomaly. We are creating a separate tier of government which is unique and peculiar to one-fifth of the population of these islands. From that flows this problem, and from this problem flow other major problems to which we have still to turn our minds—for example, taxation. The problem of defining taxation powers arises because of the unique and peculiar form of government proposed for Scotland. Therefore, any tax-raising powers that it has will be unique and peculiar to Scotland and the Scottish people. That


is at the heart of the matter. The only logical answer is to have a similar tier of government for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heffer: I do not want that.

Mr. Cook: I do not blame my hon. Friend for saying that. If any hon. Member is in doubt about the argument against such a tier of government, I shall be happy to supply him with a speech on the matter. Had we not perceived a popular demand for it, we, in Scotland, should not be seeking it now. I can understand why those representing English constituencies do not want such a tier of government. However, if we say "No, we are not prepared to have such a tier of government, but we are bent on giving devolution to Scotland and Wales", we cannot evade all the anomalies which flow from that basic fundamental proposition. One anomaly will be that we shall have to live with a certain amount of Scottish and Welsh representation in the House of Commons. That anomaly will in no way be resolved by tinkering with the representation here in the mechanical, arithmetical way proposed in the amendment.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: There are one or two aspects of the speech made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) which I find a little difficult to follow. In particular, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be catching the disease of the nationalists when he said that he did not like to consider and compare devolution with the Irish experience. As Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has ventured any way along the path of devolution or separation, we would be unwise not to consider closely the Irish experience. The one aspect of the United Kingdom with which the nationalists do not want any comparison is Southern Ireland. It is unpalatable to them to compare the situation in Southern Ireland, after 50 years of independence, with the prospects which they throw out for an independent Scotland. Their comparisons, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, are usually with Scandinavian countries which are far enough away for most Scottish people not to have a great deal of experience of them.
One of the ironies of debate on the Bill is that the motivation for devolution does not appear to come from those parts of the United Kingdom which could be considered constitutionally under-privileged or from any of the regions of England or Ulster. The motivation comes from Scotland and Wales, which are the most privileged parts, constitutionally, of the United Kingdom. I remind the Committee that Scotland, with a population of 5¼ million, or 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, has six Ministers in the Commons at the Scottish Office, two Ministers in the Lords who are also Scottish Office Ministers, and at least half a dozen Ministers in other Government Departments, excluding the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means who plays a prominent part in the activities of the House generally. Those figures illustrate the privileged position which Scotland enjoys in the United Kingdom. It now appears that the present position should be a stepping stone to even greater privilege.
I am not altogether happy with the amendment, but I accept the reasons behind it and I have to try to go along with it on the basis that if we are to have a Bill such as this there must be a Speaker's Conference to consider the important question of representation. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has opened the way to consideration of the numbers and voting rights of Scottish and Welsh Members. This amendment would come into effect only in the event of the Bill reaching the statute book.
There has been a great deal of speculation tonight about whether the Leader of the House would introduce a guillotine motion, thus wielding a sharp instrument against the Bill. But this evening he has dealt the Bill a severe blow with an extremely blunt instrument in the way that he was unable to cope with the questions put to him about what the position of Scottish and Welsh Members would be if the Bill reached the statute book. I find it surprising that Ministers have given so little consideration to this matter, which must by its very nature strike at the heart of the Government's proposals.
The difficulty that we face is not so much one of numbers, because few people


would defend passionately the status quo m the number of Members here. At the end of the day a fairly simple arithmetical sum concerning representation in the House would be presented and the House would vote on it. The difficulty concerns the voting rights of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House in the event of Assemblies being set up in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Even if the number of Scottish and Welsh Members were halved the same difficulty would remain. The Committee cannot overlook this difficulty. Least of all can the Government and the Lord President brush aside this difficulty as being of no consequence when it lies at the heart of the debate. It would be a nonsense for Scottish Members to vote on English Bills and not on Scottish Bills and for English Members to be unable to vote on Scottish Bills.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member's point has little to do with the amendment. The argument put forward by his Front Bench concerned the number of Members elected in Scotland who should come to the House of Commons. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are two factors to be taken into account in determining that number—and he should know this as a Scottish Tory? Not only has population, its sparsity or otherwise, to be considered but area has to be born in mind. Area has always favoured the Tories in Scotland, where there are small electorates in large areas. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in fairness, if there were to be any cut, each single vote —

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must remind hon. Members that interruptions prolong speeches and long interruptions prolong them even more.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not need persuading that the number of Scottish Members at Westminster should be retained at 71. But I must relate this to the proposals put forward by the Government. There is, to say the least, a lack of logic in the Government's proposals to retain 71 seats when they have not resolved the problem of how the House of Commons would operate thereafter. That is the crux of the matter. It is not just a difficulty because of party lines. The difficulty is defining when, and in what circum-

stances, Scottish and Welsh Members would be able to vote in the House. It is a difficulty which the Lord President and the Speaker's Conference will find virtually impossible to overcome. It is an extremely ticklish problem. I doubt whether any hon. Member is likely to present a solution which will make life easier for the Lord President if the Bill reaches the statute book.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member and many other hon. Members have made the same fundamental mistake of believing that this issue has arisen only recently. For a long time there has been separate Scottish legislation on matters such as housing and health. Such legislation can be voted down by English Members. That anomaly has existed for a long time. It is merely sharpened now.

Mr. Fletcher: I disagree with the hon. Member. Although we may have, for example, a Housing (Scotland) Bill, it is still essentially a piece of British legislation going through the House, given special consideration by Scottish Members. But it is essentially funded on a British basis although it may be administered from St. Andrew's House rather than from the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Member aware, when we consider the question of Bills, that it is not just a matter of funding? There are party considerations, too. In the Scottish Grand Committee the Conservatives have six or seven Members out of 16 hon. Members representing Scottish seats whereas the SNP has only one, or at the most two, out of our 11. The result is that the party situation is weighted against the SNP. Would he care to comment on that?

Mr. Fletcher: Not particularly, because it is not relevant to my point. What makes a mockery of the numbers question is the inability of Ministers to hide the fact that the clear motivation behind the Bill is an attempt to save Labour seats in Scotland and Wales. It may be that Ministers have reached the state when they have stopped trying to suggest that any other motivation exists. Ministers, and Members representing Scottish seats, must realise that even a nationalist-ridden oil sheikhdom cannot have its cake and eat it, as the Government propose. That is what the amendment is about.
3.0 a.m.
I do not want the price of devolution for Scotland to be so great financially that it would create a tremendous amount of extra government overheads in a country which is already crippled by a two-tier system of local government. It has already been suggested in Committee that to the Assembly should be added a senate. That would result in a bicameral system in Scotland. I do not want the cost of devolution to be measured in terms of loss of Scottish influence here because Westminster will remain the centre of politics.
If the Government had been less panic-stricken about nationalism, they might have thought more about those costs before presenting any devolution Bill to the House. That is particularly so since there are ways of meeting the aspirations of the Scottish people without extracting a price which most people will be unwilling to pay.
I do not suggest that there are any easy ways of finding a solution. Our debates so far have shown that there are not. There are no easy ways, particularly if one wishes to retain the integrity of the United Kingdom and the sovereign Parliament at Westminster. That is the fundamental principle of those who advocate devolution, but it is not the fundamental principle of those who advocate separatism. Federalism has been suggested and it has certain advantages. But the winds of change have not reached anything like that pitch in the United Kingdom.
Having heard the disappointing contribution of the Leader of the House, it is tempting to say that he should take the Bill away and think again. I am sure that that is the best advice that the Committee can give, but in the spirit of 3 a.m. constructiveness I feel that I can throw a life-belt to the Lord President, who has endured much this evening. He might consider my suggestion if he has not closed his mind too firmly on the documents that constitute the Bill.
The possibility of developing and rearranging the strength of hon. Members in the House in any logical manner will be shown more and more to be impossible. The absence of any constructive answers from the Lord President indicates the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of doing that. If the Assembly in

Edinburgh were made an upper House of this Chamber rather than a minor House, the solution to our problems might be found. If a directly elected Assembly was the upper House for all Scottish business and we could find a way of bypassing the Lords, our problems might be solved.
I know that the Lord President feels protective towards the House of Lords but my suggestion might resolve the difficulties that he is encountering among hon. Members. Other advantages would be gained. There would be no increase in the cost of government, there would be no loss of Scottish influence and this amendment would not be necessary. Parliament would retain its power at Westminster in association with the upper House in Edinburgh for Scottish business. That would achieve a partial reform of the Lord President's beloved House of Lords. There would be no need for a Scottish senate and there would be a bicameral system for Scottish legislation.
That amounts to something more than was contained in the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who suggested that the present proposals of the Scottish Conservative Party were for nothing more than a directly-elected Select Committee of the House of Commons. It would certainly be considerably more than that. That is something that the Lord President may want to take into account as he becomes more and more desperate at the size and the complexities of the problem that he is facing. I offer the suggestion to him at this early hour of the morning at no extra cost.
I suggest that if the Lord President cannot find some solution of that nature he should, for the sake of his own reputation, take the Bill away, rethink the whole thing, and either keep it from the House altogether or bring it back in a form that will be more comprehensible and much more nearly confined within the constitutional lines of our proceedings in Parliament.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I should like to make a point on the hon. Member's rather original and vague concept of a Scottish House of Lords—or "Hoose of Lairds". Would its Members be hereditary or appointed—or would they be elected? If so, who


would pay their wages, and how would it not cost any extra to the public purse?

Mr. Fletcher: I know that it is rather early in the day to stretch the mind of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but the simple point is that it would be an elected Assembly, as proposed by the Government; it would be in Edinburgh, as proposed in the Bill, and it would undertake the duties of an upper House. Its Members would be paid in the same way as hon. Members are paid.

Mr. William Ross: What would happen to the hereditary and other Scots Members who are in the House of Lords? The hon. Member shifts from the Commons to the Lords the problem of how they would vote—or has he not worked that out yet?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is aware that his right hon. Friend the Lord President would take good care of those matters. The Lords is a much more flexible place than the Commons. Things are managed much more flexibly there than here.

Mr. Leo Abse: I found the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President yesterday extraordinarily bizarre, because in what was an uncharacteristically dispirited speech he never ceased to emphasise the residual power that the House of Commons was retaining in the devolution scheme. He carefully catalogued all the major matters which would still be under the control and within the surveillance of this House and which would leave full authority—as he believed—to a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency.
I found my right hon. Friend's contribution strange, because I have heard speeches from the Secretary of State for Wales constantly telling the people of Wales how much power was being devolved, reciting in White Paper after White Paper and at party conference after party conference the massive hand-over that was taking place. Those words, spelt out without hyperbole, are contained in each White Paper.
So we have a curious pair of Ministers, one of whom is preaching to us how much power is being retained and the other of whom is preaching how much is

being devolved. It is not a very edifying spectacle. It seems at first sight as though two honourable men are behaving with a certain measure of duplicity. As the Leader of the House of Commons is normally always distinguished by his candour, even when the House of Commons may be in disagreement with him, it is not a particularly happy spectacle to believe, as one begins to believe, that there is something lacking in candour in the manner in which the case is being presented.
It is not surprising that the Lord President has contributed a curious combination of diffidence and dogmatism, because in this case the dogmatism betrays, inevitably, the overcompensated doubt. He insists that there will be no change. He calls as his witness what has been said before in past Government declarations. He says that there will be no change at all in the membership of the House of Commons as far as Wales and Scotland are concerned.
When one asks the Lord President again and again for the reasons why he believes that there should be no change, he does not give the reason which I believe to be the reason and by which I stand. I was elected to come to Parliament as a Labour Member. My constituents clearly want to have a Labour Member of Parliament. The overwhelming majority of the people of Wales have shown consistently by their vote that they want a Labour Government.
I do not know why the Front Bench spokesmen should be so lacking in candour that they do not say that the reason why we believe that in no way should the membership be altered is that we proudly believe that the wisdom of Scotland and Wales has in the past ensured that from time to time we have Labour Governments. I believe that to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. When at various times there have been panics in other parts of Britain, as in 1931 we had the benefit in Wales of people keeping their heads and maintaining their Socialist convictions. They were able to stand up against those who were moved so unfortunately by what they believed to be inescapable economic facts.
Therefore, I make no apology for saying that the reason why I oppose the amendment is that, like the speeches


from my Front Bench, the amendment lacks candour. It affects to require a Speaker's Conference. Everyone knows what the purpose of that Speaker's Conference would be. It would be to create a situation in which where would be a recommendation, which it would be hoped that the House of Commons would pass, to cut down the number of Members representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies.
Why are we not facing up to the fact that what we are debating when discussing the amendment is the whole future of Labour Governments in this country?

Mr. Beith: Is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that we should reward those parts of the country which have consistently shown support for the Labour Party by giving them more seats and reducing the number of seats available to those places that have failed to support the Labour Party?

Mr. Abse: The wisdom that has been displayed by Scotland and Wales means that a debt is owed to them by England. The reforming zeal that has so frequently come out of Wales, a reforming zeal which shaped the whole of the Welfare State and which gave us the insurance Acts and health Acts, came out of the deprivation that had been suffered. The dynamic came out of Wales.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to take his argument further and agree that the cause of Socialism in the United Kingdom as a whole would be advanced even further if there were Labour Governments controlling Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, which could therefore introduce legislation and programmes of action which could provide a Socialist example to the other countries in the United Kingdom?

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Abse: I do not believe that the role of Socialists in Wales is to live their lives by a parish pump. They should continue to leaven the political life of Britain as a whole with a spirit of enlightenment, reformism and radicalism. So I oppose the amendment, bluntly and brutally, for the same reasons as those for which it is put forward—political reasons. The Conservative Party naturally wants to obtain Conservative Governments and the Labour Party wants to

avoid them. We should face the fact that we are debating a manoeuvre which would make Labour Governments less likely.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman merely postponing the evil day? The change arises not from the amendment but from the Bill. As his hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) so eloquently said, these conflicts and demands were irresistible and will arise with or without the amendment.

Mr. Abse: Indeed, but the diffidence of Scottish and Welsh Tories in failing to agree bluntly to the diminution of numbers is due to their fear of offending Wales and Scotland. Why should be deceive ourselves? It is true that, with or without the amendment. there will be a growing demand for the numbers to be cut. When I have said, as I have many times, that the Bill is a trap for the whole British Labour movement, I have been accused of being extravagant and alarmist. This is the moment of truth. Now we see revealed, naked and unashamed, the goal of some hon. Members that the numbers should be reduced.
The reason that the normally resourceful and vigorous Leader of the House provided no adequate reason—if any at all—to justify maintaining the present numbers is that he did not face the fact that each of us who represents a Welsh or Scottish constituency will have no supervision of more than half the work we now do.
Together with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas), I represent a new town. The part which I represent now comprises more than a third of my constituency. All the powers of funding and appointment, and those relating to shopping and industry in that new town will now be vested in the Cardiff Assembly.
Heaven help my new town if that comes about. If it came about, I should not be in a position to raise the issues with Ministers. I should not be able to raise the major matters that would be involved in the new town.
There will be a total change in the role and the function of every Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish or Welsh constituency. We shall be sharing


our work with two others. They will do half the work and we shall be left, perhaps, with the other half. As has been repeatedly said in the House of Commons, there will be an intolerable position. We shall be adjudicating upon matters in English constituencies and the English constituency Members will not be able to adjudicate upon matters in Welsh and Scottish constituencies or to question what is taking place.
It is clear that serious consequences flow. The amendment is an intimation that if this measure is accepted by the people in a referendum, if it ever reaches them, it will mean that the voice of Wales will be muted at Westminster. It will mean that Members here will not be able to speak up on a wide range of issues on behalf of their constituencies. It will mean that Wales would have colluded in a scheme that would result in making it less and less likely in the event that we shall have a Labour Government.
Indeed, it is worse than that. We have heard a great deal in this debate about Northern Ireland as far as the amendment has permitted us to talk about it, and it seems to have permitted us to talk about it a great deal. I hold a minority view on what we should be doing with Northern Ireland. Unlike Scotland and Wales, where the people have by their conduct, behaviour and political expression made it unequivocally clear that they are enmeshed in the life of the United Kingdom, I believe that the destiny of Northern Ireland will be determined in the last analysis by those who live there. I believe that we are in danger of Northern Ireland becoming our Vietnam. We are deceiving ourselves if we believe that we can deal with the matter directly from Westminster. I believe that it will be one more tragic consequence of the Bill if the people of Wales are to be told, as is clearly indicated in the amendment, that they must have fewer Members of Parliament and that the people of Northern Ireland must have more. What a droll consequence that would be.
When the people of Wales understand that that is the bill that will be presented, they will realise that those who have suggested that even if the amendment is defeated the bill so rendered to them will only be deferred have been speaking with

authenticity. It does not require many prophetic gifts to realise that the House of Commons will find it increasingly intolerable that there should be an imbalance between the number of Welsh and Scottish Members and other Members of Parliament.
I say to the Committee, as I say to Wales and my constituents, that if it condones the Bill it will mean that the people of Wales will lose a great deal. They will lose having Members who can speak up and out for them as they have had in the past. They will be taking a grave risk in believing that some untried and untested Assembly man in a new institution will perform the traditional role of the Member of Parliament in this Chamber.
I say to the people of Wales as 1 say to the Committee that the voice of Wales will be so muted that it will be inevitable that no longer will Wales be able to throw up such an extraordinary number of major and influential members of Governments. That is because Scottish and Welsh Members will be bound to scrutinise the claims of other Members who will be denying them the right to interefere in any way with issues that are impinging upon them in Scotland and Wales. It will mean that we shall have fewer Welsh Members; it will mean, in short, that our remarkable political history—a political history of the Welsh Labour movement—will shrivel and wither.
For these reasons, and because I do not want it to occur, I shall vote against this insincere amendment, which puts forward a procedure designed deliberately and clearly to bring a little nearer the aim that Welsh and Scottish representation shall be truncated with a view to making it more likely that we shall have permanent Tory Governments. I shall vote against that. I shall do so because if I did not it would bring a little nearer what in any event will come about if the Bill goes through—the probability of the permanence of Tory Governments.
Let my hon. Friends representing English constituencies not believe that what we are discussing affects only Scottish and Welsh Members. If we in Scotland and Wales have regional Assemblies, it is logical and likely that regional Assemblies will spawn in England. Indeed, last weekend, at a local government


conference attended by Ministers and the General Secretary of the Labour Party, the view was being canvassed that there should be regional Assemblies in England similar to the Welsh Assembly. That view was put from the platform. It was put in order to present the goal of regional Assemblies for England.
If regional Assemblies spawn on the lines of the proposed Welsh Assembly, it will mean that the whole role of this Parliament will be entirely different. It will mean that we need fewer Members generally, for otherwise we would, as a small nation, be hopelessly over-governed. It begins with Wales, it will end with England.
If any of my hon. Friends believe that he will have placated or bought off nationalism without paying his price, he is gravely mistaken. He will not only lose the possibility of future Labour Governments; he will begin on the road which could be a threat to a considerable number of seats throughout the kingdom. It is bound to mean, in the last analysis, a reduction in the number of Members required to serve in this House if we proliferate government in the form of regional governments throughout the kingdom, as will be spurred on in the North-East, Merseyside and Humberside, jealous, as they will be, of Wales and Scotland, believing that Wales and Scotland have something they have not got, and wanting to join in the fray.

Mr. Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend read the article in The Scotsman by David Gow, quoting Mr. Illtyd Harrington, deputy leader of the Greater London Council, as saying:
We would like to have comparable powers with the Scottish Assembly, particularly in the fields of financial and planning authority. We are unique in putting a money Bill through Parliament. From this room, where we are sitting, if we include the education authority budget, we are running a budget of £5,000 million a year."?
So it goes on.

Mr. Abse: It is inevitable. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty, in all his eloquence, said that the Bill would make nationalists of us all. It is already beginning. It is echoed in the North-East and in London. We have started upon a road which can only lead to the most miserable fragmentation. What has

happened to this House that it should lose its self-confidence?
3.30 a.m.
What has happened to this nation? Because we have lost an empire, and because we are bewildered, must we feel we can only gain a real identity in the British House of Commons by multiplying ourselves, by creating Assemblies one after the other? What we are demonstrating by this Bill, and what we are discussing, is a failure of nerve and confidence. When we discover that some fringe groups spawn, as inevitably they do, we should hold our nerve just as the Labour movement in Scotland is evidently prepared to do, because according to the latest poll the majority of the Labour electorate is saying that it does not want devolution in any form whatever.
But instead of doing that one simply yields pathetically to the blackmail of Scottish and Welsh nationalism and embarks on a Bill that is the most miserable piece of appeasement comparable to that which took place in pre-war years and against which the Leader of the House so eloquently fought and wrote.
The importance of this debate, and the importance of the Opposition Front Bench amendment, should not be minimised. It is a warning to Wales that if devolution comes to Wales we shall no longer be able to make our proud contribution to Labour Governments. We shall be paying the price for having some wretched white elephant down in Cardiff. We shall be making sure that we shall always have the Tory yoke upon us.

Mr. Raison: We have heard some eloquent speeches from both sides of the Committee. I do not propose to be eloquent. I propose to be rather dry and technical. I must start by saying that as one sat here this evening one has wondered how the Lord President will feel when he finally crawls into bed this morning. Will he feel a sense of deep weariness? If so, will it be the weariness of someone who knows that he is on the losing side? The Lord President should also feel a sense of despair because throughout the night he has heard hon. Friend after hon. Friend attacking almost every aspect of this piece of legislation.
I hope the Lord President will also feel a sense of shame because the speech with which he opened the debate was the


most shameful that we have heard from him.
I want to take up the point that I made earlier in an intervention when the Lord President was speaking. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to confirm—he did not do so—that under this scheme an hon. Member of the House of Commons can take part in legislation, and question Ministers about any aspect of the United Kingdom just as he can at present. That point was accepted the other day by the Minister of State, and anyone who looks at the Bill will realise that there is no limitation on the powers of Members of Parliament to legislate and question Ministers. There is no limitation at all. The Government hope that there will be a convention by which they will forbear from legislating and from questioning Ministers. We have established that fact.
As I said in my intervention, the logic of this is that this scheme is even more unsuccessful than people have realised. The notion of concurrent powers is an absurdity and a constitutional monstrosity.
The question I wish to put to the Lord President concerns not the powers of Members of Parliament, because those are clear, but the rôle of the Secretary of State. For example, Clause 21 says that things that are basically done at present by Secretaries of State can, in Scotland, be done by the Executive or members of the Executive.
Clause 21 (2) states:
The members of the Scottish Executive shall exercise on behalf of Her Majesty such of her prerogative and other executive powers exercisable in or as regards Scotland as relate to devolved matters.
In Clause 21(8), we read:
The executive powers mentioned in subsection (2) of this section include any executive power conferred on a Minister of the Crown by any enactment passed or made before the passing of this Act; and a member of the Scottish Executive shall perform any duty which by such an enactment is imposed on a Minister of the Crown, so far as it falls to be performed in or as regards Scotland and relates to a devolved matter.
Clause 23(1) reads:
Where, by or under any Act passed before this Act, any power to make, confirm or approve orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate legislation is conferred on a Minister of the Crown, then, to the extent that it is exercisable exclusively with respect to a devolved matter, it shall be exercisable—


(a) as regards Scotland, by a member of the Scottish Executive; and
(b) as regards Wales, by the Welsh Assembly".

My question to the Leader of the House is whether those provisions mean that the Secretary of State or the appropriate Minister of the Crown will still be able to exercise the powers which have been conferred on him by Parliament. As I read the Bill, it seems that, just as with legislation there is a concurrent power and this House can legislate as well as the new Assemblies, so in the administration of government it is also the case that the Secretary of State will still be able to perform all these duties which have been imposed upon him by statute. They will, at the same time, as the provisions which I have just read indicate, be done by the Executive or a member of the Executive.
But we have to establish whether those powers are transferred from the Secretary of State to the Executive or whether they are, as I suspect, to be concurrent powers. If that is so, once again we see the absurd anomalies which are embodied in so many respects in this legislation. I hope that we shall be given a considered and factual answer to what I believe to be a very important question, even though I may have made it sound rather boring.
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the convention—what I have called previously "the self-denying non-ordinance"—upon which the Government rest their hopes that Members do not continue to take an interest in the affairs of their constituents actually works. Let us suppose, in other words, that the Government's scheme works. What can we expect?
Tonight's debate has established, if it needed establishing, the utter inequity of what is being proposed. I make it clear, like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that I am not attacking the existing Scottish and Welsh numerical over-representation. I do not wish to see that taken away from the Scots and the Welsh. There are perfectly respectable reasons why it should exist. But, under the new dispensation, it has become utterly untenable.
The problem is that the Government have landed themselves in a situation to which there is no answer under this


scheme. They can reduce the number of Scottish Members. That is one answer, and I dare say that that will have to happen. To that extent, therefore, I support my right hon. Friend's amendment. But no one thinks that that is a satisfactory answer. They can try to limit the powers of Members. They can adopt the "in and out" system. But, again, no one thinks that that is a satisfactory system.
There is no satisfactory way of resolving the problem. The Government have come up with a structure which is unworkable. Anyone with a glimmering of instinct for constitution making would say that this attempt to combine the unitary with the devolved can never work. The only way in which it can conceivably work is in a climate of maxium good will on all sides. But we know that two of the parties represented in this House have no good will towards this working. They regard it merely as a half-way step on the road to total separation. We know that there will be far too many people and far too many parties with a vested interest against the scheme working for it to be able to work. We have outlined in debate after debate the endless opportunities for friction which lie in this scheme. These will be exploited by those people who do not want the scheme to work.
The only answer now—and it is becoming more apparent with each Committee sitting—is to scrap the whole scheme and start again, so anomalous and ramshackle is this particular edifice.

Mr. Dalyell: On the matter of good will, I would remind the Committee that the Kilbrandon Committee in all its deliberations, and with an approach that was in favour of devolution, made it clear in paragraph 771 of its report that if good will did not exist, and there was no consensus, legislative devolution should not go ahead at all.
The issue which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and I have raised four times is the question whether that hon. Member is right or wrong about raising in this House matters which have been devolved to the Scottish Assembly. The Lord President is too tired to give a full answer now, and I do not expect it. But could we ask that at the beginning of tomorrow's business a statement is made by one of the Law Officers—either

the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate—setting out the facts of the legal situation as seen by him on this question?
If the hon. Member for Aylesbury is right and this Parliament can raise any devolved subjects, why are we bothering to go through this subject at all. What is the point of devolution? If he is wrong, this Committee should be told, because then the whole issue of meddling and interference without responsibility arises.

Mr. Paul Channon: Does the hon. Member recall that a document sent to Members on 3rd December by the Lord President contained an explanatory note of the purposes of this Bill? It said:
Parliament will remain constitutionally able to legislate on any matter. That is the essence of the concept of devolution as distinct from federalism. But the Government expect and intend in practice to stand aside from devolved fields.
The Lord President has circulated exact confirmation of what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) have been saying time and time again in this House.

Mr. Dalyell: I go along with that. The intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who was a Minister, prompts me to give an example in relation to Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, and my constituency. There is, at the moment, a long correspondence in The Times on the issue of Mentmore, which is well known to the hon. Gentleman who is interested in the arts. The fact of life at the moment is that under this Bill I could raise, on an Adjournment debate, the issue of policy in relation to Mentmore in Buckinghamshire. But in relation to Rosebery Place, West Lothian or Dalmeny or the Scottish Historic Buildings Council, I would have no right to raise the matter. This is a crazy situation, and it should not be allowed to continue. What is true in the arts will be equally true in other more important fields. This situation cannot go on.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) said that the Speaker's Conference would find it very difficult. That is part of the trouble in the whole issue which we are discussing.


It is no good saying that it will be difficult for the Speaker's Conference. Indeed, it will he difficult, because it will be asked to find solutions to problems for which there are no solutions.
3.45 a.m.
If after all these hours of debate these able Ministers and these clever civil servants, who have worked for so long on this matter, quite aware of the problems that arise, can find no satisfactory answer, how is it imagined that a Speaker's Conference will come up with some kind of solution? This is the problem that faced my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He said that someone in the House might come up with a marvellous idea of how the Scottish Assembly could have taxing powers. If there had been any way in which, painlessly and acceptably, the Scottish Assembly could have levied taxes, my right hon. Friends or the civil servants would have discovered it long ago. The truth is that it is no good shelving it for other people to deal with when there is no solution to the basic problem.
The trouble with the amendment is that the idea that these things can be pushed over to a Speaker's Conference will meet the same kind of difficulties as those described to me by Arthur Woodburn in connection with the 1920 Speaker's Conference. This kind of thing was put to that conference and it found it impossible to provide an answer for the very reason that Mr. Gladstone failed over representation for Ireland.
We therefore come back to the basic proposition that it is no good trying to pass off to a Speaker's Conference, to the House of Commons or to any other body the idea that one can have a legislative Assembly, a subordinate Parliament, answerable only to a part of a unitary State. We are here at this early hour trying to achieve the impossible, and the sooner we recognise that it is impossible the better for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the rest of us.

Mr. Sproat: There are many things to be said against an all-night sitting and against debating matters such as this at this hour of the morning. One of the

great advantages of having gone all through the night, however, is that it gives the opportunity to make it abundantly clear, by the sheer weight of the momentum of the argument, that what the Lord President is trying to tell us will not stand up to scrutiny. Successive speakers have made it clear that in this matter of representation we are being asked to find an answer to a question for which there is no answer.
It was a privilege to listen to the brilliance, logic and passion of the hon. Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse). They have travelled very different roads—Socialist roads—talking with candour about the need to maintain the Labour Government as being the motive behind the Bill. But they have arrived at the same destination. It is that there is no way down that road for Tory or Labour Members which fails to arrive at the conclusion that this Bill will lead to the disintegration of the United Kingdom.
I wish to direct my attention to what I believe is a "Catch 22" situation. If an Assembly is set up, to have 71 Scottish Members of Parliament is unfair to the Members who represent English seats. On the other hand, if we reduce the number of Scottish Members from 71, that is unfair to the people represented by Scottish M.Ps. Some of the arguments have been advanced many times tonight. But the advantage of these debates is to go on hammering home until the point eventually sinks into the Lord President's head.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to read a newspaper during the course of the Committee stage.

Mr. Sproat: It will not be acceptable to have Scottish Members able to legislate on matters affecting only English constituencies but Members for English constituencies unable to do the same for Scotland. It is no use the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) saying with dour truculence that if the number of Scottish Members is reduced the people of Scotland will not stand for it. That may go down well in Kilmarnock, but it is no use saying it here, when we represent only 10 per cent. of the people. We must be fair. It is no use thinking that Scotland can protect its interests in


ways that are not open to other parts of the United Kingdom. This place will work only if each part is given equal and fair weapons to get what it wants.
I think that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said in a less aggressive way that English Members would not consider that the position was unfair. They would, because it would be unfair. It would lead to bitterness and divisiveness and to the use of words to which I have objected on several occasions. We are already starting to talk about English Members and Scottish Members. That is a detestable habit which is creeping into the Chamber. It is an inevitable result of this sort of legislation, and it will grow. Hon Members who try to deny that are deceiving themselves, the Committee and the country. If Scottish Members can carry out duties which are not open to Members for English constituencies, unfairness, bitterness, divisiveness, conflict and ultimately fragmentation will result. I very much hope that the Lord President will answer in a straightforward way and factually.

Mr. Fairgrieve: What a hope!

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is probably right, but we give the right hon. Gentleman every opportunity. He has been asked several times to answer the conundrum of concurrent legislative powers. If the House can legislate on, say, Scottish education, how can it make sense that a Scottish Assembly can also legislate on Scottish education, presumably at the same time? There could be concurrent debates on the same subject, but with different conclusions, possibly because there is a Conservative Administration here and Labour Administrations at Edinburgh and Cardiff, or vice versa. Then two parts of the United Kingdom Parliament would have come to different conclusions. How can anyone say that that is anything other than a recipe for conflict? It is ludicrous.
In a previous debate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) put a question which was not answered. He asked what would happen if a Private Member's Bill on a devolved matter, such as Scottish housing, was passed by this House and 24 hours later the Scottish Assembly wiped it out. so that we had all wasted our time. Can that happen?

The Lord President shakes his head. I do not want him to say that he does not think that it will happen because there is a convention that it will not. Can that happen or can it not? That is what we want to know. If it cannot happen, will the Lord President tell us exactly why?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have not so far taken part in the debate because I am one of the poor English Members. What will be the attitude as and when those people in another place decide that they want an Assembly in Scotland? Do we then start all over again and give the other place a place in Scotland?

Mr. Sproat: That is the kind of constitutional lunacy—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be led astray by that intervention. It was quite out of order on the amendment.

Mr. Sproat: I was about to deal with it in one crisp sentence. That is the kind of lunacy into which we shall be led by these lunatic proposals. If the Lord President never was logical, if he starts from a lunatic premise, everything thereafter will be lunatic. That is what is happening with the Bill.
If there were fewer than 71 Scottish and 36 Welsh Members in this place, that would be unfair to the people of Scotland and Wales. I do not want to enter into the argument whether the boundaries are correctly drawn and whether the present representation is wrong on that ground. My belief is that they are not. But I go along with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sproat: When I have finished the sentence, I shall give way to my hon. Friend. I go along with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed who said that those same criteria which apply in Scotland should indeed apply to every other part of the United Kingdom, if possible, but that in Scotland, because of the expanse of land and the islands, it is right and proper that places such as Orkney and Shetland should be individual constituencies—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Sproat: —I shall give way to my hon. Friend shortly—although in population they are not as large as my constituency. I should point out that my constituency is well above the national average in population terms. I agree that there should he the same criteria for England, Scotland, Ulster and Wales. Of course, as has often been said, Ulster is treated most unfairly under the present system.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the word should be not "fair" but "equal"? In the past Members of the United Kingdom Parliament have said that they were prepared to accept an unfair and unequal system of representation in the interests of retaining the unity of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sproat: I know that my hon. Friend is trying to be helpful. I prefer the word "fair" to the word "equal". The word "equal" has a mathematical connotation, whereas the word "fair" has a much broader connotation. That is what I am seeking to put forward. In general, I should not disagree with my hon. Friend.
It would be a disaster if the number of Scottish MPs were to be cut other than in accordance with those criteria which I have indicated because, if we need that number now to deal with economic, foreign affairs and defence matters, we shall certainly need them in future.
For example, one matter which will be kept in the House of Commons will be control of North Sea oil. Is the Scottish voice on North Sea oil in the House of Commons to be reduced? It is absolute lunacy. I repeat, it is a kind of "Catch 22" situation.
We can have a united Britain with a fair deal for all parts of the country or this Bill. We cannot have both. The Bill is a shambles. If it were ever put into practice, it would surely make the government of the country a shambles.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Emery: I should like to take up a little of the time of the Committee as the time approaches 4 o'clock to consider the Lord President's argument for rejecting the amendment.
The theme of part of the Lord President's argument was that the Speaker's Conference in 1944 had set out the whole basis why there should be different representation of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament from English Members. I found what he said somewhat strange, so since the Lord President spoke I have attempted to refer as thoroughly as I can to the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats.
I shall refer to the letter from the then Speaker to the Prime Minister after the Speaker's Conference, which in those days was the way of bringing the decisions of the Speaker's Conference to the attention of the House. I have already read out one part of the letter.
Recommendation No. 7, dealing with the permanent rules, states:
There shall be no reduction in the present number of Members of the House of Commons for Scotland or for Wales and Monmouthshire.
Recommendation No. 9 states:
The standard unit of electorate for each Member of the House of Commons for Great Britain shall be a quota ascertained by dividing the total electorate in Great Britain by the total number of seats in Great Britain (other than University seats) existing at the time the Boundary Commission reports.
Hon. Members will note that there were university seats at that time.
In fairness, I must mention that Recommendation No. 14 stipulated that there should be 12 Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. But there is no argument at all in that document, other than the recommendations. Yet, as I listened to the Lord President, I was given the impression that there was a whole basis of strong logic which led to the House of Commons making this decision. One had the feeling that the recommendations were tablets of stone which the Government had to accept, and that we should pay great attention to the decisions of that Speaker's Conference. I would add that Appendix 2 records that the Speaker's Conference rejected by 25 votes to 6 a resolution recommending that no person should vote more than once at any election. I do not think that this suggestion would be very popular today.
We go on from that Speaker's Conference to the House of Commons (Redistribution) Bill. In Hansard of 10th October 1944 we read that Mr. Morrison,


referring to the Speaker's Conference, said:
But I must make it clear that whilst we have, and quite properly I think, carried out the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference in respect of England and Wales, it does not mean, and of course it cannot mean, that the Government or the House are committed to the view that figures of not less than 71 for Scotland, and not less than 35 for Wales, should stand for all time. There may in the future be such changes in the distribution of population that some alteration of those figures will in fairness be required.
I shall read the whole quotation so that I cannot be accused of leaving anything out. Mr. Morrison continued:
Unless and until, however, such substantial changes take place and fresh legislation is passed, these provisions which I have mentioned will operate. There cannot, of course, be any commitment beyond that. It must be for future Parliaments and future Governments
—and this is the point that I want to emphasise—
to decide what is right at the time—and I wish them luck."—[Official Report, 10th October 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1615.]

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated the point I was seeking to make because if he takes the comparison of the 1944 Speaker's Conference he will see that there has been no alternation in the population which would lead to a change in the sitution. That is shown by the fact that, on the 1939 registers in force in 1944, leaving aside the university seats, the average English electorate was 23 per cent. higher than the Scottish electorate and 16 per cent. higher than the Welsh electorate. The comparable 1975 figures were respectively 24 per cent. and 16 per cent. In other words, the figures are almost unchanged. The point the hon. Member made, quoting from Mr. Herbert Morrison saying that a future Parliament might wish to change these matters, was underlined by the Attorney-General in the Conservative Government of 1958 who said:
One ought not lightly to depart from the accepted recommendations of a Speaker's Conference which have stood for so long." —[Official Report, 27th March 1958; Vol. 585 c. 664.]
All I am saying is that the same considerations apply now and that is why we were opposed to the reference to the Speaker's Conference even before we embarked on this discussion.

Mr. Emery: Taking the right hon. Gentleman's last point first, I suggest that he is now praying in aid something much later than the 1944 conference, namely what a Conservative Minister may have said in 1958. I wish to challenge his figures. He is going back to 1939. The Speaker's Conference we are talking about was held in 1944.

Mr. Foot: The 1944 conference was working on the registers for 1939. There is no distinction.

Mr. Emery: Perhaps I can give the right hon. Gentleman some figures for 1944.
I refer to Mr. Butler's book "The Electoral System in Britain since 1918", page 215, where it is said that in 1944 it was provided that the total numbers of MPs should not be substantially greater or less than it was then but there should be no reduction in the representation of Scotland or Wales although that gave Scotland one Member for 46,693 electors and Wales one for 51,333 compared with one for 55,693 electors in England.
If, using those figures, we set the English figures as 100, the Welsh figure represents 92·1 per cent. and the Scottish figure 83·8 per cent. The statistical section of the Library has supplied me with figures dealing with today's electorate. These show that the size of the electorate per seat in England is 64,900, in Wales 56,100 and in Scotland 52,200. Again, taking the English figure as 100, that gives a figure for Wales of 86·4 per cent. and for Scotland of 80·4 per cent.—differences of 5·7 per cent. and 3·4 per cent. respectively.
While that is only a partial argument in my favour, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that he cannot rely on the statistical evidence. Recommendations from the Speaker's Conference are not Holy Writ. The recommendations we are talking about were based on a situation which took no account of devolution, when there were not to be 100 or so Members in Assemblies.
The Leader of the House is a fair democrat, whatever the criticisms of him may be. He is a man who wishes to see democratic processes carried out to the best of his ability, so why is he not willing to have the whole matter considered if the Bill does get through? I hope that


it does not, but surely one of the ways of stopping the resentment of British hon. Members is to have the matter referred to a new Speaker's Conference. If that were done I could go to my electorate in Devon and say that if the Bill gets through the Government will look into the possible unfairness that might exist in the representation of the different sections of England, Wales and Scotland.
In my area of the South-West people are usually a little slow to catch on to what is happening in legislation. They say that there is too much legislation and ask me to stop it. But now the consequences of the Bill are beginning to get home to them. They are asking what is to happen to England? Will the Bill break up the Act of Union? I shall not make a speech along those lines, as I have argued the case before. But I am trying to get home to the Leader of the House that he must show some flexibility and that this way he loses nothing. I urge him to have second thoughts. Accepting my right hon. Friend's amendment can do no harm.
I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He said that by accepting the amendment we are likely to confuse the people who think that we are opposing the Bill. That is a false argument.
I urge the Leader of the House to have second thoughts to allow people to see that there is flexibility and to see that if the Government do hammer the Bill through, they will still try to look after English hon. Members and the English electorate.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Hearing the speech by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) gives me more confidence to oppose the amendment. I have spend much of the evening thinking that I had sat up all night with the probable result that I would abstain. But now I have confidence to oppose the amendment.
The effect of the measure as a whole is likely to be disastrous. With the exception of voting on the proposal to exclude Wales from the Bill, I have not voted in the Committee. I then voted in support of the Government because it would

be undesirable to prevent the Welsh people from having an opportunity to vote in a referendum.
In practice, the vote tonight is probably irrelevant. If the Bill goes through it is likely that some future Government will take the opportunity of readjusting the representation of Members of the House. I see the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) nodding his head. I think that that may well happen at some future time.
I do not pretend that I am unalterably opposed to the idea of devolution. I should be prepared to accept it if I were convinced that it was what the people of Scotland and Wales really wanted, but until we have had a referendum in which a choice of three questions has been given to the people of Scotland and Wales and we know what they feel about the issue I am not prepared to vote on a particular form of devolution on the form that the Assembly should take the powers it should have, or the manner in which it should be elected. I must accept that nevertheless it is possible that the Bill will go through. I do not wish to curtail the debate for those who wish to continue discussing the Bill but I must recognise that there is a distinct possibility that the Bill will go through, whatever my attitude. I therefore have to consider what will be the consequences after the Assemblies have been set up. I feel that what we are doing now is to declare a decree nisi of divorce without having heard any adequate evidence of the breakdown of the marriage. The only evidence that we have is the presence of a certain number of nationalist Members on the Opposition Benches, but that represents no more than evidence of the capacity of the Scottish and Welsh people for flirtation; it does not represent the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
In the process of passing the Bill we are declaring a decree of divorce without having heard adequate evidence—which we can do only after a referendum—of the breakdown of the Union of the two countries. If we pass the Bill and then hold a referendum the people of Scotland and Wales will be faced with the question: do you approve what Parliament has done? They will be asked to approve what Parliament has done and they will be consequently the more likely to vote in support of it, because Parliament


will have given it the seal of approval.
Notwithstanding my reservations and my regret that the Bill is before the House, I must face the possibility of what will happen if the Bill is passed. I accept that if we curtail representation of Wales and Scotland in Westminster after the Bill is passed the likelihood of a further breakdown of the Union will be that much enhanced. So long as we at Westminster have full representation and the power to levy taxation it is here that the real power will lie. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have acknowledged the need for more than numerical representation for the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom. Unless we retain that representation in the future it is likely that we shall have a greater move towards total separation.
In those circumstances I propose to support the Government in resisting the amendment, but I hope that the Government will, even now, have further thoughts and will decide to hold a referendum before proceeding further with the Bill.

Mr. Channon: The only moment when I had second thoughts about supporting the amendment was when I heard the view expressed that if it were carried it might help the Bill to get through. I believe that if the Bill is passed—I hope it will not be—it is essential that some provision such as that contained in the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend should be incorporated in it.
The whole debate to which we have listened is a classic example of the terrible dangers into which the House of Commons is creeping, night after night and day after day, with every hour that we discuss the Bill. We hear Scottish Members and English Members, as we now all think of ourselves, discussing whether they think of themselves as British, Scottish or English, or whatever it may be. All of these matters, which none of us had seriously considered previously, are now coming to the forefront.
We have heard the passionate speeches of the hon. Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), Pontypool (Mr. Abse), Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and many others, all of whom give me the feeling that Parliament is sliding into a situation that will get us out of control completely if the Bill passes into law.
Until now, I did not believe that there was any English Member who seriously disputed the right of Scotland and Wales to be over-represented here. It was not a subject for discussion. It was not something that English Members even seriously considered. Now, as a result of the Bill, this is a very live issue in the House of Commons and will shortly be so outside it.
In our constituencies it is already to some extent a matter for discussion. If the Bill goes through, it will become a matter for very live discussion. Whatever may happen to the amendment—from the speeches we have heard, it will probably not be accepted by the Cornmittee—this topic will not go away. It will be with us for years to come. There will be a great likelihood of a feeling of burning injustice among English Members if the situation occurs, as it would do in a Parliament of this kind, in which a Government with perhaps a small majority were supported by Members from, say, Scotland or Wales representing smaller numbers of people than those from England and voting on topics in relation to English matters on which English Members would either not have the right to vote legally in Scotland or in Wales or, at the minimum—and we do not know the truth of the matter yet—would be subject to a convention that they should not do so.
All hon. Members will have their onstituency points to make about a matter of this kind. I do not wish to enter into the merits of the controversy I am about to mention. In my constituency there is violent controversy at present about education, and there are strongly held points of view. Hon. Members may take different views about what is right and what is wrong in this matter but it will be thought astonishing, not only in my constituency but all over England, that these matters are to be settled in the future by, perhaps, hon. Members from Scotland who have the right to vote about education matters in my constituency when I shall not have the right to vote on what happens in education in their constituencies. In the long run, people will regard that situation as intolerable.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will this issue be in the hon. Gentleman's election address at the next General Election?

Mr. Channon: If the Bill passes into law, it almost certainly will be in my address. I very much hope that the Bill does not pass into law. If it does so, it will be a running sore—a sore that English Members will feel more and more deeply as time passes.

Mr. Dalyell: By "running sore" does the hon. Gentleman mean that if he wera member of a Government he would urge that Government to try to repeal this legislation?

Mr. Channon: In that unlikely event, I would certainly urge the Government to repeal it. I would willingly wish to repeal it. However, that is not for me to say.
I am in agreement with what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. There is no easy solution to the problem with which the Government have confronted the House. What is the solution? Should we have two categories of Members? Some have canvassed that solution. From the Home Rule Bills of the ninteenth century and later, we all know of the immense practical difficulties that were found in trying to devise a system of having "in and out" Members. It has been said tonight that that is a course to which we might have to come.
Let us take, for example, what happened during last Session. Under the Bill, would Scottish and Welsh Members have been entitled to vote on Guillotine motions introduced by the Lord President? Would that have been a wholly English matter or a matter on which Members in all parts of the House of Commons would have been allowed to vote? Inevitably, there would be immense anomalies in having "in and out" Members entitled to vote on some issues but not on others. It would be an incredibly difficult position for the Committee to adopt. It is a solution that has been examined by many Governments in the past and has always been rejected by them.
Would another answer be rough justice—the ending of the over-representation of Scotland and Wales but the maintenance of their voting rights? That would not be perfect, but there is no perfect solution. The Bill is incapable of amendment to provide a rational solution. Before passing such a measure, the Comm

itte should ask that a Speaker's Conference be convened. I agree that the odds are that it will find no solution but it is the counsel of despair to say that nothing should be done.
As 90 per cent, of all hon. Members who have spoken have said, this is a bad Bill. Never have I known a Bill attract such an unending torrent of criticism. Scarcely anyone has spoken in its favour. Representation will matter in the end more than almost anything else, and the answer to that is a Speaker's Conference or something similar to see whether it can reach a rational solution.

Mr. Powell: There is not one.

Mr. Channon: I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but we cannot just let the matter go. I shall vote against the Bill at all stages, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will, but we should have a Speaker's Conference to examine the representation of Scotland and Wales, England and Northern Ireland, to mitigate the evil effects of a monstrous Bill—a Bill which I hope will in the end be rejected.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Leadbitter: Having sat here continually for 12 hours, I shall not listen to the groans of those who have not been here so long—especially on a matter so important to the Labour Party and the House of Commons.
This debate has provided a fundamental lesson for the Government. Through not listening to members of their party or to public opinion, they have reached an impasse. They have placed before us the simple but crucial question—does support of the Bill produce a future that we do not want for the Labour Party, and will pushing it aside remove the Government's problem?
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) behaved in a devious manner. He seemed to think that the amendment would be supported by hon. Members as they would support a Scottish or Welsh Bill in Standing Committee. The Lord President said that this was not the place to deal with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Down,


South (Mr. Powell), in one of the most important speeches on the Bill so tar, made it clear that it would not matter whether the amendment was before us or not. It is inevitable that this question will be with us for some time.
If we accept the Bill and it becomes an Act, without doubt many English Members, and certainly Scottish and Welsh Members, will question the role of Members coming from Scotland and Wales. If the role of those Members is to be anything less than the full-time role of English Members for the reasons that have been given time and time again in Committee, there will obviously be increasing demands for less representation from Scotland and Wales. The corollary of that is simple.
4.30 a.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse), in a speech as important as that made by the right hon. Member for Down, South, took a different but more pungent approach to the problem. He said that the Bill would affect the future of the Labour Party in Great Britain in respect of the Government at the House of Commons or the West-minister Parliament. He made it clear that that was the purpose of the amendment.
If I heard the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire correctly, when he talks about parity of representation he means, without dealing with peripheral matters, representation on a population basis. He talked about 12 extra seats for England, I think, 12 or 10 fewer seats for Scotland and four fewer seats for Wales. He spoke of figures of that sort. Once Members talk in terms of that sort of parity, or once we get future Boundary Commissions dealing with parliamentary boundaries, there will be pressures, if we suffer the great misfortunes of the Bill becoming an Act, that will result in less representation from Scotland and Wales and the likelihood of Labour Governments emerging successfully from General Elections less often.
Anyone who is as honest and frank as my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool can very well be accused of introducing politics into the debate, but that is what it is all about. If I have to make a choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government, I

do not want to see the Conservatives in power. I accept that a two-party system or a three-party system is essential to democracy, but I do not want to find the cards stacked so much against us, as a result of arguments which have a great deal of plausibility but which cannot be related to reality, that the future prospects of Labour Governments are damaged.
Over the years the Scottish National Party has placed before both parties a situation that I describe as reaction to party rather than to the will of the people. If we are to have a situation in which Members of the House of Commons cannot raise Questions on 27 groupings under the Scottish measures for devolution and 20 groupings under the Welsh process of devolution under Schedules 6 and 7, what worth will a Member have who comes from Scotland or Wales? He will come increasingly to recognise that he is less important in the House of Commons than a Member of the Cardiff or Edinburgh Assemblies? He will soon be able to say "I am only a part-time Member in the House of Commons". He will be increasingly subjected to a position of being in or out, a position in which he is part of a separate certification procedure where he speaks and votes on certain subjects but not on others. Therefore, for the Scottish and Welsh Members there will be great difficulties.
There will be difficulties arising out of the divisions between us. There will be difficulties between Parliament at Westminster and the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. Again, the Northern Region of England, for example—which has not had much expression in the debate so far —has an important stake in this matter. Many of us from the North are being increasingly pressed on the question of the disparities which are bound to arise out of the establishment of these Assemblies, the representation issue, and the increasing divisions which will arise between Members of Parliament in different parts of the United Kingdom.
We in the North are seeking a fair share of limited resources; we have our unemployment problem; we have a right to our fair share of investment programmes in oil development and construction; we have other problems which are also no less than those of Scotland and Wales.
If the Government go much further in this argument and do not listen to Back Benchers on both sides of the Committee, if they do not recognise that there is now a change in the tide of opinion in Scotland and that there was never a tide of opinion in Wales in favour of devolution, if they create these divisions, we shall be brought right to the crossroads where the demand to decrease the number of Members for Scotland and Wales will be real.
It is no good my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales giving us assurances. They have no power to determine what will happen under pressure in future. There are forces in the Committee which are determined to look for parity of representation. There is, indeed, a good sound argument for parity. It might one day satisfy the House but it does not make any sense for a Labour Government, and for a Labour Government to have responded to a minority group and not to the people of Scotland, thus bringing us to this impasse, is a great tragedy.
While I oppose the amendment, I roust not be misunderstood. It is not merely because I say that the timing is not right for the amendment. It is because I see that there is need to appeal again to the Government to respond, for the day of reckoning will come. On that day there will be an explosion of the realisation that this matter must be dealt with. It can be dealt with in only one way, and that is by throwing this rotten potato out of the window now.

Mr. George Thompson: Although I see that the clock is winding its way towards 5 a.m., I think I can hardly fail to give some advice to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Lead-bitter). I remind him of the old English proverb
Faint heart never won fair maid".
Faint hearts in the Labour Party will surely never win fair Tory voters in England. Surely English Socialists must have something wrong with them if they have concluded that they can never hope to have a Labour Government in England unless they have Scottish and Welsh Members to provide them with a majority. I would say to them "Take

heart. Preach your gospel to the people of England. Perhaps they will listen, perhaps they will not."
I sometimes have the pleasure of appearing on that bicultural medium Border Television. I tell English Members who are debating with me that if they feel that the North of England needs a regional Assembly they should ask for it and very likely the Government will give them it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "From a crock of gold."] If the Government have crocks of gold, no doubt they will give it to them.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is not a question of faint hearts. Every hon. Member who spoke about representation has made it abundantly clear that the traditional representation from Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons is something that we all appreciate and want. Rather than express a faint heart, we are seeking to express our faith in a system that has enriched this House of Commons.

Mr. Thompson: I do not want to go down the lane that the hon. Gentleman has kindly opened up in front of me. But I am bound to say that it was he who feared that there would never be a Labour Government in England if there were no Scottish or Welsh Labour Members.
When we talk about peripheral areas, it seems to me that almost the whole of the United Kingdom is peripheral to London. We have been told that we should not talk of Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish Members. Why not? We talk about Scottish Questions and the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have a Scottish Grand Committee, which some of us came down to attend yesterday but discovered that it was not sitting. Nevertheless, it exists and it sits.
We have been told by several hon. Members about the numerous Back Benchers who have spoken against their own Government's propositions. Some of those hon. Members must be suffering from an optical or an oral illusion. They have added up all the interventions and speeches of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and have come to the conclusion that the number of Back Benchers speaking against the Government are legion. That is not so.
If I remember the history of Scotland well, one of the sticking points when the Commissioners met to negotiate the parliamentary Union in 1706 concerned representation. The Scottish Parliament insisted on the number of representatives being increased. I admit that the mystical number of 71 had not been attained at that time. Perhaps the Lord President, or whoever replies, can tell us when that mystical number was invented.
I wanted to emphasise the point that apparent or real over-representation depends in part on the sparsity of population. My constituency is an example of that. A mountain mass lies between us and South Ayrshire. While it may be possible to adjust the boundaries between the constituency in Galloway and Dumfriesshire, I do not think it would be easy to adjust the boundaries with South Ayrshire, in spite of the Forestry Commission having built many roads over the hills and through the valleys.
The Tories in Galloway have been telling us that the Bill will reduce the representation of Galloway. In fact, what is happening is that the Tories are endeavouring to reduce the representation of Galloway in the House of Commons.
4.45 a.m.
As long as the House deals with important aspects of Scottish life, as it will, even in a devolved situation, foreign affairs and European Economic Community affairs—these will loom larger and larger in our national life and they will all be dealt with from the House—that is one reason why we must continue to have the representation that we have today.
It would be quite acceptable, in my view, that Scottish and Welsh Members should abstain or, it necessary, should be debarred from voting on English matters. This is quite feasible. My hon. Friends and I normally observe this self-imposed convention, and we do not find that it works so badly. After all, it is perfectly possible to characterise Bills as referring to Scotland, to England or to Wales. If I am not mistaken, the Committee presided over by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) recommended that in future English and Welsh Bills should have a parenthetic addition like Scottish Bills have, so that their titles include the

word "England" or the word "wales" in brackets as we at present do with the word "Scotland" in our legislation.

Mr. Tebbit: would the hon. Gentle man feel that he had the right to take part in a vote of no confidences?

Mr. Thompson: In so far as a vote of confidence is about the Government, who deal with these important aspects of Scottish life, yes, I should feel perfectly entitled to vote.
During this debate I have felt that the arguments deployed have frequently veered towards suggesting federalism as the proper solution. It would make clear distinction between what was given to the subordinate Assembly and what was not, and it would clarify the issue much better than the present Bill does. Naturally, I do not want to argue for federalism, because that is not what my party stands for—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): It would be out of order, in any event.

Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir Myer. I agree, and I am grateful to you for pointing that out to me. I have endeavoured to keep within the bounds of order, but I realise that the temptations are very great and that some of us are tempted down side tracks.
If the number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons is reduced, the Scottish people will see that their best course of action is to assume full responsibility for their own affairs and they will draw the logical conclusion. My hon. Friends and I can never accept a reduction in the number of Scottish Members in the House until the day comes when we all pack up our bags and go home for good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In that case, this honourable House of Commons will revert to being the Parliament of England which so often it has psychologically remained. I put it to the Committee that perhaps the simplest solution to cut all the Gordian knots that we have discussed in this debate would be for Scotland and England both to resume their independence, and to allow Wales to do likewise.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Lord President.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it right that the Lord President should be called to address the Committee again on this amendment when certain hon. Members have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate?

The First Deputy Chairman: It is quite in order for the Lord President to address the Committee again, and the choice of speakers is a matter entirely for the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. Is it not right that, in a Committee stage, the Lord President should seek leave to speak again?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the Committee. This is a Committee stage, and there is no need for the Lord President to ask leave to speak again.

Mr. Foot: Some hours ago I delivered a speech which, as I recall, did not meet with immediate acclaim and approval in every part of the Committee I seem to have become aware also that, during the debate, a critical tone crept into some of the speeches. I seek to intervene again to deal with some aspects of the matter. I do not propose to traverse the same arguments and the same aspects as before. Instead, I shall deal directly with some of the essential and immediate points which arise from the amendment. These turn partly on the question of the reference of some of the matters to a Speaker's Conference.
We should all agree that the question of in-and-out membership of the House of Commons, or first and second-tier membership, is not a matter which can be referred to a Speaker's Conference in any sense. This is a matter on which the House must make up its mind during the course of the Bill. I do not believe that any solution we arrive at could possibly incorporate that principle. We must make up our minds to abjure that principle whatever consequent difficulties or embarrassments arise.

Mr. Amery: Does the Lord President appreciate that if we have Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff we shall, in fact, be introducing a two-tier system in the

House and that it will be extremely difficult for Scottish and Welsh Members to be appointed as Ministers for health or education, for example? The Bill will neuter Scottish and Welsh Members to some extent.

Mr. Foot: I do not accept that at all. We should not work on the principle that we are establishing two categories of Members of Parliament. Whatever differences we may have on how the Bill applies, we should all agree that the question of categories of hon. Members is not a proper matter for a Speaker's Conference. That is the issue we are debating in the amendment.
I emphasise the point I made in reply to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who challenged what I said about the Speaker's Conference. He thought I was speaking derogatorily about the Speaker's Conference. I believe that it is the proper way, according to our traditions and methods, for dealing with representation in the House in certain circumstances. That has been the principle on which we have operated many other electoral requirements. They have been dealt with by a Speaker's Conference, and that is reasonable.
We have argued however, that on the basis of the figures which I quoted there is in the situation since 1944 no case for altering the grounds for reference of this issue to a Speaker's Conference. On the 1939 registers, which were in force in 1944, the English electorates were on average 23 per cent. higher than Scottish electorates and 16 per cent. higher than the Welsh. The comparable 1975 figures were 24 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively. The figures are almost unchanged. When these matters were examined in 1944, there was a considerable weighting in favour of Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, against English representation.
Those figures, which were reviewed by the Speaker's Conference in 1944, are almost the same as the figures which prevail today. On those grounds, therefore, there is no case for a reference of the matter to the Speaker's Conference. We believe that as there has not been a great change in the circumstances we should try to sustain the situation.
As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Honiton, that is not merely my view.


It was the view which was upheld by the Conservative Attorney-General in 1958 when there was a redistribution of seats. He said that one should not lightly depart from the accepted recommendations of a Speaker's Conference which have stood for a long time. As there was a case in 1958 for holding to the 1944 recommendations, so I say that there is a case for doing the same today.
That was the principal ground on which the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition made an approach to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister urging that the whole question of representation in this House of Commons should be referred to a Speaker's Conference. This was proposed by the official Opposition before any question of devolution was proposed. The Opposition were not urging that it should be done on the basis of devolution. That is a perfectly legitimate position for the Opposition to adopt. They are perfectly entitled to make such recommendations about having the matter referred to a Speaker's Conference. Equally, we are entitled to tell the House—since the matter affects this debate—the grounds on which we believe that there should be no such reference.
Furthermore, our view is that the devolution debate does not alter the situation. There may be a case at some future stage for referring these matters to a Speaker's Conference, but we say that it would be wrong for the House to say that that should happen now. In a sense, it would be the more dangerous because the whole of such a reference would become involved in the very questions of devolution—such as first and second-class membership—which have figured prominently in our debates today. That would lead to a distortion rather than a proper estimate of how we should deal with the situation.

Mr. Emery: The Lord President's argument is that we do not easily move away from recommendations of a Speaker's Conference when those recommendations have stood for many years. But the Labour Party has already moved away from four of the recommendations of the Conference on the questions of two constituencies and double voting. The Labour Party has not worried about this principle previously.

Mr. Foot: Many of these matters have been referred to Speaker's Conferences. Many of these matters have been dealt with by mutual agreement between the parties. But there is no case now for a reference of the question of changing representation to a Speaker's Conference.
5 a.m.
Some of my hon. Friends have used arguments of a different character. They have said that what we propose in the Bill would be damaging to the Labour Party and the Labour movement. In my opinion, nothing could be more damaging to the Labour Party and its good name for us to go back on the pledges we gave to the Labour movement in Scotland, Wales and the country as a whole, and to go back on the understanding that we reached. That would be the most damaging course of all, particularly if it were associated with any yielding to the propositions from the official Opposition in the debate today.
I trust that, whatever differences there may be about other matters, all my hon. Friends will join the Government in resisting the amendments, which could be damaging to not only the Labour Party but the country as a whole. I repeat that nothing could do more injury to the long-term unity of the United Kingdom than that we should embark upon the kind of alterations in the whole of the representation in the House that the Opposition appear to be urging upon us. Therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friends to resist the amendments.

Mr. Brittan: When, a very long time ago, the Lord President opened his side of the debate, he made a speech which many on both sides of the Chamber will have regarded as ragged, tawdry and profoundly unconvincing. Whether that speech was more damaging to his reputation or to the Bill I leave to the Committee to judge, but one thing that is clear is that any damage to the right hon Gentleman's reputation or to the Bill caused by his first speech was not rectified by the second, which answered none of the substantial points made on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Kinnock: During the course of the Bill's passage the hon. Gentleman and I will have occasion to be in close sympathy with one another, but does he not do his cause a great deal of harm by that kind of


personal attack on my right hon. Friend, with whom I have the most profound differences on the Bill?

Mr. Brittan: The Lord President started his initial observations by objecting to the form of the amendment. It is well known that there are inevitably constraints on an Opposition in putting down amendments to a restricted Bill of this kind, restricted by the way in which the Government have chosen to present it. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), we are very anxious that the Speaker's Conference should consider more than the consequences of the Bill for the representation of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom generally. If the right hon. Gentleman had been inclined to respond to the debate constructively, he would have recognised that nothing in the amendment would confine the Speaker's Conference to Scotland and Wales. The amendment deals specifically only with Scotland and Wales, but the Speaker's Conference would be entitled to go well beyond those two countries.
Next, the right hon. Gentleman cavilled at the date. He knows that 1st Janunary 1978 was included precisely to avoid the accusation that the amendment's purpose was to delay the implementation of the Bill, if it passes through the House. That was an unworthy and trivial argument too.
Then the right hon. Gentleman complained that it was illogical or improper that the Speaker's Conference should be bound up with the Bill. But the suggestion of a Speaker's Conference was made by my right hon. Friend because we did not believe that there was a ready answer to the problems presented by the Bill. There is no simple solution, although the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), on behalf of the Liberal Party, put forward a solution and criticised the official Opposition for not coming up with a firm proposal. It is because the problems of representation are peculiarly intractable, and because we do not have a dogmatic answer, that we have suggested that the matter should be referred to a Speaker's Conference. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) regarded it as an unsuitable

vehicle because it was a political body and its recommendations were not always followed.
I suggest that, precisely because it is a political body which produces recommendations which do not have to be followed automatically, it is peculiarly suitable to consider this matter. Ultimately the decisions have to be taken in the House of Commons. Ultimately the Speaker's Conference reports to the House and the House decides whether and to what extent to accept the recommendations. Therefore, we are not taking a decision away from the House. Quite the reverse. We are suggesting a Conference that would have the opportunity to consider the various alternatives put before it in a more considered way than the House of Commons could possibly do by amendments put before it in Committee. It is an entirely rational and reasonable proposal to put before the Committee for dealing with these problems.
In opening and in replying to the debate, the Lord President said that no change whatsoever was called for. He gave no explanation of why no change was called for. Indeed, he gave no justification and he refused to recognise that any problem existed. Particularly in replying, he concentrated on trying to bemuse the Committee with what amounted to a red herring of an argument. The fact that the idea of a change in the representation of Scotland and Wales has been put forward outside the context of the Bill does not in any way affect the argument when we come to consider the Bill. Whether or not there was justification for altering the representation of Scotland and Wales when there was no Bill, of one thing we can be quite clear: that the Bill makes all the difference in the world and completely alters the situation regarding representation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not the fact that the Kilbrandon Report suggested that the representation of Scotland and Wales should be adjusted if devolution were implemented?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right. The Kilbrandon Report suggested exactly that. The Lord President completely ignored that point, although it was made in the debate before my hon. Friend's


intervention. That matter has not been dealt with at all. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the effect of the Bill will be that many of the most important political questions affecting Scotland and Wales will be decided in Scotland and Wales, not at Westminster. Yet exactly the same kind of matters affecting England will be decided at Westminster, and Scottish and Welsh Members will not only be able to consider them but may provide the crucial votes that determine the outcome. To say that the question of the representation of Scotland and Wales is not affected by the passage of the Bill is a manifest absurdity, and the Lord President knows it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) pointed out that in theory it would be possible for the House of Commons to pass legislation affecting Scotland and Wales, even in the devolved areas, but that, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, unless regular use was made of what was meant to be an irregular power it would be illogical to keep the representation the same as it is now after the Bill comes into effect. As the right hon. Gentleman described it, this very problem is the explosive charge that will blow the Bill to pieces.
The effect of devolution on representation was recognised with the reduction in the numbers of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. As my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) pointed out, the Kilbrandon recommendation recognised that a devolution measure cannot be passed without having consequences for the representation of the part of the country to which devolved powers are passed.
It is absurd to suggest that there is no problem. The Lord President certainly pointed out some of the difficulties of one of the solutions which has been proposed—the in-and-out solution—which was canvassed in the Home Rule debates at the end of the nineteenth century. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) seemed to think that that procedure was acceptable, but on this occasion I am inclined to agree for once with the Lord President that the solution is not acceptable. The truth is

that there is no solution to this problem because of the nature of the Bill. The principal benefit of the amendment is that it has compelled us all to face the consequences of passing a Bill of this kind.
As has been pointed out in the debate, there may be a heavy price to pay for the Bill. It is right that before continuing our consideration of the Bill the Committee should consider whether the price is worth paying. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said that we must spell out to the people of Wales and Scotland the cost of these proposals. It may be that the price is not worth paying. As the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, the Bill will make nationalists of us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said that we are now beginning to think and talk of ourselves as English Members in a way which never happened before the Bill was presented. The amendment has forced the Committee to face the consequences of the Bill.
Some Labour Members recognise the consequences in their heart of hearts but are rather more candid than other Labour Members and say that although they recognise the consequences of the Bill they will oppose the amendment because it might lead to fewer Labour Members. To those hon. Members I say that if the amendment is defeated the issue will not go away even if the Bill is passed. Future Parliaments and future Governments will have to resolve the question. It would be much more conducive to the unity of the United Kingdom, however, to consider this question in conjunction with the Bill rather than have to face it much later after the passage of the Bill, when there will be a real risk that the problem of representation will be posed in a spirit of anger and resentment instead of the readiness for rational discussion which is enshrined in the amendment and which leads me to commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Michael Morris: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. As we have no


guillotine on this debate, will you advise us why the Government find it necessary to close the debate now when some hon. Members have been here for seven hours waiting to speak? Is this simply another example of English gerrymandering?

The First Deputy Chairman: Nobody closed the debate. No hon. Member rose to speak when the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) sat down.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 199, Noes 277.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[5.13 a.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Gray, Hamish
Page, John (Harrow West)


Alison, Michael
Grieve, Percy
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Griffiths, Eldon
Page, Richard (Workington)


Arnold, Tom
Grist, Ian
Pattie, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grylls, Michael
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Hall, Sir John
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Baker, Kenneth
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pink, R. Bonner


Banks, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hannam, John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Benyon, W.
Hastings, Stephen
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Blaker, Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bottomley, Peter
Holland, Philip
Rhodes James, R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brittan, Leon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Budgen, Nick
Hurd, Douglas
Sainsbury, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shepherd, Colin


Channon, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kilfedder, James
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Speed, Keith


Cordle, John H.
Lamont, Norman
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Crowder, F.P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawson, Nigel
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Stanley, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Drayson, Burnaby
MacGregor, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eden, Rt Hn Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tebbit, Norman


Elliott Sir William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fairbairn, Nicholas 
Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Fell,Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter
Wakeham, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Forman, Nigel 
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Walters, Dennis


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Neave, Airey
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Goodhart, Philip
Newton, Tony
Younger, Hon George


Goodhew Victor
Normanton, Tom



Goodlad, Alastair
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gorst, John
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Osborn, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freud, Clement
Molloy, William


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bates, Alf
George, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bean, R. E.
Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Beith, A. J.
Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gould, Bryan
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Ted
Newens, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Noble, Mike


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grocott, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Padley, Walter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Park, George


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert


Buchanan, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, Ian
Horam, John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Radice, Giles


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rees Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Carter, Ray
Huckfield, Les
Reid, George 


carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roper, John


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Ross Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross Rt Hon w. (Kilmarnock)


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowlands, Ted


Cowans, Harry
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford Scuth)


Crawford, Douglas
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rl Hon Peter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Small, William


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Stott, Roger


Doig, Peter
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Swain, Thomas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Duffy. A. E. P.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunnett, Jack
MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thompson, George


Edge, Geoff
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Tierney, Sydney


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Torney, Tom


Ennals, David
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Marks, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David







Watkinson, John
Whitlock, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Watt, Hamish
Wigley, Dafydd
Woodall, Alec


Weetch, Ken
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woof, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Welsh, Andrew
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, James (Pollok)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Mr James Tinn and


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

IMPORT DUTIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A

(Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Import Duties (General) (No. 10) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 2077), dated 2nd December 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be annulled.—[Mr. Jay.]

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 175.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[5.25 a.m.


Allaun, Frank
Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gould, Bryan
Ovenden, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Paisley, Rev Ian


Bean, R. E.
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hooley, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, George


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Canavan, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carson, John
Kerr, Russell
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Carter Jones, Lewis
Kilfedder, James
Sillars, James


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Robin F. (E[...]in C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Corbett, Robin
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Swain, Thomas


Crawford, Douglas
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Litterick, Tom
Thompson, George


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Loyden, Eddie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dempsey, James
McCusker, H.
Torney, Tom


Dunlop, John
McNamara, Kevin
Whitlock, William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Edge, Geoff
Marten, Neil
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Winterton, Nicholas


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mendelson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Fell, Anthony
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Moate, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molyneaux, James
Mr. John Ellis.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cartwright, John
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Eadie, Alex


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald
Emery, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cowans, Harry
English, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ennals, David


Bates, Alf
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Faulds, Andrew


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freeson, Reginald


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Deakins, Eric
Freud, Clement


Bradley, Tom
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
George, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Gilbert, Dr John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Doig, Peter
Golding, John


Buchanan, Richard
Dormand, J. D.
Graham, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Duffy. A E. P.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Carter, Ray
Dunn, James A.
Grocott, Bruce




Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hardy, Peter
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon
Spriggs, Leslie


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stallard, A. W.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stott, Roger


Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Huckfield, Les
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, John


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Varley, Rl Hon Eric G.


Janner, Greville
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


John, Brynmor
Noble, Mike
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
O'Halloran, Michael
Ward, Michael


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watt, Hamish


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Judd, Frank
Park, George
Welsh, Andrew


Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kelley, Richard
Penhaligon, David
White, James (Pollok)


Lamborn, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Luard, Evan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roper, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woodall, Alec


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacCormick, Iain
Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton E)


McElhone, Frank
Sandelson, Neville



MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Joseph Harper and


MacKenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. David Stoddart


Maclennan, Robert
Small, William

Question accordingly negatived.

ROYAL SCOTTISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

5.37 a.m.

Mr. George Younger: We have heard much in the Press in recent months about battered babies and the tragic background that there usually is in such cases. I want to raise tonight the problems of the organisation which is usually in the front line in dealing with such cases, the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. This is an entirely voluntary society, established originally in 1884 and confirmed by Royal Charter in 1922. Its annual budget in recent years has been running at about £500,000. The vast majority of its funds comes from money raised by voluntary effort by its own members.
However, there has for some years been a basic level of support from local authorities and the Scottish Office which, although small in relation to the total funds raised by the society, has enabled

a basic professional organisation to be maintained, which in turn has led to its high professional reputation and the keeping up of enthusiasm among its members throughout the country who have raised most of its money. It is because of the threat of a serious reduction in these basic grants that I fear for the maintenance of its high standards in future. That is why I am raising the matter.
The RSSPCC has over 40 inspectors and 35 visitors. Cases are referred to it by the general public, social work departments, reporters' departments, the police or any individual. A close liaison is maintained with social work departments to avoid duplication of effort. Once an inspector has assessed a case, either the child is given protection in one of the society's homes or the child and its family can be given support and supervision if necessary by one of the society's visitors.
All the staff receive proper professional training for their work. Part of the grant received from the Scottish Office is directly used to assist in the provision of training. Therefore, the work of the society is of a thoroughly professional standard. If the society did not exist, a considerable extra burden would be put on the already


hard-pressed staff in social work departments.
As regards finance, it can truthfully be said that the public get an extremely good bargain from the society. Up to now, grants from local authorities have been running at about £40,000 a year and from the Scottish Office at about £23,000, plus a small extra amount to help with staff training. In addition, local authorities pay fees for children from their areas who are taken into the society's two residential homes, one in Edinburgh and one in Ayrshire. For that relatively modest outlay, amounting to a little over £70,000 a year excluding the fees, the society does work the total cost of which amounts to about £500,000 each year.
That brings me to the current situation. In 1972 the local authority associations recommended their members to contribute to the society at a rate of £10 per thousand population in each local authority area. That was raised to £12 per thousand population in 1975 by the new local authority organisation known as COSLA. However, in September 1976, as the new financial stringency began to hit local authorities, COSLA once more discussed its recommendation and quite suddenly reduced it from £12 per thousand population to £3·80 per thousand population. If fully implemented by all local authorities, that would reduce the local authorities' contributions to approximately £20,000 a year as against the expected total on the previous formula of over £60,000.
A cut of that size would change the society's financial position from having a manageable deficit on its running accounts to having quite serious financial problems. That would put at risk some of its most valuable work and would threaten to reduce the ability of the society in future to raise the £200,000 or so that it raises every year by voluntary effort. Everyone knows and accepts that we have to have cuts in public expenditure if we are to reduce inflation, and the society would not ask to be entirely exempted from the sacrifice that everyone is having to make, but I hope that all concerned will ask themselves what is the sense in saving £40,000 to £50,000 if it puts at risk the expenditude of about £½ million

which is mostly raised voluntarily and is spent for the public good.
These Good Samaritans are having their grants cut overnight by about 70 per cent. The only result must be either a much greater burden on social work departments or, worst of all, a reduction in the help given to children whose unhappy lives are the proper concern of us all. I know that the Minister is well aware of these problems and that he has a high opinion of the work of the society. I am sure he will continue to be as helpful as he can in the grant that he and his Department give to the society.
I cannot, of course, ask the Minister to make up the shortfall in grant from the local authorities. Nor, I am sure, would it be easy for him to take this matter up himself with the regional authorities concerned. I hope, however, that he will use his good offices to discuss this question again with COSLA and to ask it to take into account the saving to local authorities which the society's work makes and the danger of allowing too sharp a cut-back in support to the society without giving it a reasonable time to adapt its financial policy to the new situation. If the Minister will agree to do that, he will earn the heartfelt gratitude of the society and of myself and he will be doing a good service to the better care of children who suffer hardship and ill treatment.

5.46 a.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I endorse what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has said. We all sympathise with local authorities at the present time over the cuts which their services have to undergo. One cannot have the same sympathy with the Government, because Governments have made the decisions creating the position in which we now find ourselves.
We are having a bad time at the moment. As unemployment increases, hardship increases and children are apt to suffer more. The RSSPCC does a tremendous job. There are apt to be more children at risk during a depression. The society's funds are being denuded because the grant is being cut, yet this is a time when the funds of the society ought to be getting a boost to help it to overtake many of the problems that it will face in the future.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State not only to ask COSLA to increase the grant per thousand children but to do all he can in his own right to see that this voluntary effort is not allowed to wither away. As the hon. Gentleman said, the society raises £500,000 by its own efforts. In times like these such funds may not be readily available, and the society will therefore need more help instead of less from the people who really should bear the responsibility.
I urge my hon. Friend to accept that responsibility and do all he can to see that the society is preserved and that the work it is doing is sustained. I hope he will use his good offices with COSLA and the Department to ensure that the society has sufficient funds to carry on its excellent work.

5.49 a.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I, too, endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Violence in the Family. The evidence given to us by the RSSPCC and its sister organisation south of the border was of inestimable value.
Given this reduction in the local authority grant to the society and the difficulties that the society will encounter in raising funds on a voluntary basis in the present economic situation, will the Under-Secretary of State look at the role of the Voluntary Service Unit to see whether it could make a direct donation to the society? There is a feeling among voluntary organisations that there has not been the adequate clarification of the rôle of the VSU in Scotland that there has been south of the border. That is one direction from which funds could be made available to the society.
Like other hon. Members, I urge the Minister to do all that is possible within the Scottish Office to make sure that the grant it gives directly is increased.

5.50 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on initiating this debate on an important subject. I also appreciate the contributions by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow,

Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). I should also mention several other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), who take an interest in children's affairs.
I am at one with the hon. Member for Ayr when he says that over a period of 90 years the society has had a long and distinguished record in the care and protection of children. We can all agree on that. The society has a long, distinguished and highly professional record.
If I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he suggested that the local authorities were being somewhat shortsighted in deciding to reduce the financial assistance they give to the RSSPCC, since the authorities themselves—hard pressed as they are on financial and staffing resources—may find that any consequent reduction in the society's work on the care and protection of children will result in a corresponding increase in demand for the authorities' own services. Under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, local authorities have power to give grant to any voluntary organisation whose object is to promote social welfare. I must make it clear that it is entirely for a local authority itself to decide whether to give such financial assistance to any particular organisation operating in its area and, if so, the amount of help that it will give.
I understand that four or five years ago the local authority associations in Scotland devised a formula which individual local authorities could, if they so wished, adopt in making grants to voluntary organisations. Following the reorganisation of local government, COSLA has considered this question and has made recommendations about the level of grant which authorities might wish to make. I understand, however, that the convention's recommendations are no more than recommendations and that individual authorities will themselves decide whether to adopt them.
COSLA decided last autumn that the recommended rate of grant to the RSSPCC should be reduced from £12 per thousand population to £3·80 per thousand population. It appears that this could result in a loss of income by the RSSPCC of up to £40,000 in the current financial year if all local authorities adhere to this recommendation. I can appreciate how


anxious the society is about such a reduction in income coming, as it does, at a time when voluntary organisations generally may be finding it not so easy to obtain any compensating increase in income from other sources, particularly voluntary sources.
I am afraid that I do not have information about the action which individual authorities may be taking about grant to the society. As I have said, this is a matter on which local authorities must make their own decisions. They are best placed to decide on what they can afford in the light of the income available to them—including the rate support grant paid by the Government—and of the claims on all their resources. Each authority will be well aware of the services provided by the RSSPCC in its area and will have considered, I am sure, any implications for its own services for children if there were to be a reduction in those of the RSSPCC itself. I hope that the outlook is not nearly as gloomy as the picture painted by the hon. Member—and I doubt whether it will be. Conversely, I hope that the picture which I have painted is not too optimistic.
For some years now the Government have also been giving some assistance to the RSSPCC, initially for training purposes and, for the last two or three years, to help it with development work and its headquarters expenses—for example, by paying the expenses of specially appointed staff. In the present financial year we have offered grant of £23,000 for development and headquarters work, and the hon. Member for Ayr spoke of small additional allowances for staff training. For the present financial year there is a grant of £23,000 for development and headquarters work and we expect the grant for training purposes to be in the region of £25,000. Therefore, the total grant comes to £48,000 in the year.
We have not yet completed our consultations with the society on grant for the 1977–78 financial year. The amount which we shall offer must to a large extent depend on the programme of work which the society plans to undertake and on our own budget for grant for social welfare purposes. But, while I am

unable to say how much we shall be giving RSSPCC for this, I am hopeful that at least we shall not be applying any cuts in grant available for development and headquarters work or for approved training. In these perilous times when there are so many constraints on finance, that is very welcome news and a measure of the worth that we put on the society.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is not the crux of this matter the whole economic strategy on public expenditure? Although I have been not exactly uncritical of the lack of public expenditure in very necessary areas, is it not rather strange that this issue should be raised by an hon. Member who has been crying out for more cuts in public expenditure? Much as we appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for children and for the good work which the society performs in Scotland, is it not strange that an hon. Member who shouts and votes for more money to be spent on guns, bullets, nuclear submarines and multi-rôle combat aircraft should be asking for a sum of money which would amount to one-fourteenth of the cost of one multi-rôole combat aircraft? Does not this demonstrate a rather strange sense of priorities on the part of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)?

Mr. McElhone: I have heard that argument advanced by my hon. Friend before. There is call from the Opposition for substantial cuts in public expenditure, and it is only fair that we should ask them where we should make the cuts and what additional money the hon. Member for Ayr wants if he has a special interest in any specific organisation.
Over the last few years increasing attention has been devoted to the question of non-accidental injury to children —some people describe it simply as "baby battering". Central and local government and the health services have been specially concerned to try to develop administrative and professional arrangements which will bring together all those concerned with the circumstances of a particular case where such injury has occurred or is suspected. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East referred to the Select Committee. A Select Committee of this House is at present study


ing the whole question of such injury to children and how ways might be found to reduce the level of risk.
This matter has been very much in the forefront of the RSSPCC's thinking, and the society approached my right hon. Friend to see whether we could, under our powers in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, give financial assistance towards the establishment of a special unit to deal with non-accidental injury. This would provide treatment for families in a particular area and also offer a wider consultative and educational service to social work and health authorities in Scotland on this problem. Similar units operate in other parts of the country under the NSPCC and are proving to be a most valuable resource.
I am glad to say that we agreed to give grant at the rate of 75 per cent. of approved costs for an initial period of three years towards the establishment of such a unit in the Glasgow area. This grant will reflect both the social work and National Health Service interests of the central Government. The unit would, of course, serve an area wider than Glasgow in its consultancy rôle. The remaining 25 per cent. of the approved costs is being shared equally between the Greater Glasgow Health Board and the Strathclyde Regional Council.
I very much welcome that joint initiative in establishing a unit of this kind in Scotland. Consultations are now proceeding with a view to launching this project, and I hope that in view of its importance it will be in operation before long. It is important to stress that not one penny of the approved expense of the unit is being asked from the society itself.
The hon. Member for Ayr will see that, for our part, the central Government are recognising in a tangible way the development and headquarters work of the RSSPCC. I hope that the society does not have to curtail its local day-to-day activities as a result of any shortfall in income from local authorities. Irrespective of the question of grant, however, I am quite certain that, by continued and close co-operation between the staff of the society and of the local authorities—backed up by the support of the community with its still untapped resources—we can continue to improve our services for the well-being of the children of Scotland.
The House will know that I have been putting emphasis on talks with church leaders. I feel that a great deal can be done by church congregations working with voluntary bodies in stress areas.
I thank the hon. Member once again for initiating this debate, which I regard as very important. He will be comforted by the £48,000 which we are giving this financial year and the fact that we hope it will be no less in 1977–78. The fact that we are contributing 75 per cent. of the grant towards the special unit shows that the Scottish Office is cognisant of the difficulties facing the society. That body has done a great deal for the care of children, and I hope that our contribution will help to meet the aspirations of the society and those of the hon. Member for Ayr and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Six o'clock a.m.